Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 03273 9790 



f /' 







San Francisco Public Library 









REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 




M> . It' 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OFJ3ALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUN 2 6 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000 
9:13 A.M. 



399-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000 
9:13 A.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



4 49386 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
88 SFPL 07/07/03 11 



3 1223 03273 9790 



11 

APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR JOE BACA 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ALSO PRESENT 

LEONARD MUNOZ, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 



Ill 
INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 



LEONARD MUNOZ, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Rosenkrantz Court Order 1 

Commissioners Only Read Materials 

Pertinent to Hearings They Chair 1 

Did Not Read Court Order in 

Rosenkrantz Case 1 

Was Court Order in Information Packet 2 

Compliance of Hearing Panel with 

Court Order 2 

Try to Get in Mind of Trial Judge 3 

Letter from Trial Judge Supported 

Parole 3 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Court Ordered Panel to Set Parole Date 3 

Order of Suitability 3 

Compliance with Court Order 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Setting of Date without Finding of 

Suitability 3 



IV 



Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Discussions with Governor's Office and 

Secretary Presley to Review Guidelines 4 

Vote to Send Nomination to Floor 4 

Need to See Procedural 

Changes in Process 5 

Battered Women Syndrome 5 

Motion to Send Nomination to Floor 6 

Committee Action 6 

Termination of Proceedings 6 

Certificate of Reporter 7 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mr. Munoz, good morning, sir. 

MR. MUNOZ: Good morning, sir. How are you? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm okay. 

Back to the Rosenkrantz court order, and the 
testimony before the Committee, I guess it was last week, that 
commissioners only read materials related to the hearings that 
they chair; is that correct? 

In other words, you would not necessarily read 
the information on a hearing somebody else was holding? 

MR. MUNOZ: That's — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is not a trick question. 

MR. MUNOZ: I understand that, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, basically if 
you're holding the hearing, you're reading the stuff pertinent 
to you. You're not reading, you don't necessarily concern 
yourself, unless you have the time, with the information on a 
hearing being held by one of the other commissioners? 
' MR. MUNOZ: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've stated that you didn't 
read the court order prior to the Rosenkrantz hearing; that is 
correct? 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the reason for that was? 

MR. MUNOZ: I was there basically in response to 
an emergency that happened to a commissioner that was assigned 
to handle that situation. I was pulled in from another 



institution in the southern end of the state, in San Diego, at 
the last minute to replace Commissioner Ortega. His mother had 
passed away. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you recall whether or not 
the court order was in the information packet you got at the 
hearing? 

MR. MUNOZ: It was addressed by the chair of that 
particular panel as far as the — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It wouldn't have been in your 



packet? 



MR. MUNOZ: I don't think it was in my packet, 



no. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: When the chair addressed it, do 
you remember what he said? 

MR. MUNOZ: Basically he said the court order was 
to conduct a hearing and to — and to grant a date. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you were aware of that? 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, do you think that you 
guys complied with the court order? 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you set a date? 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir, we did. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In your last testimony, you 
stated that Mr. Rosenkrantz had been a model prisoner. 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You also said that one of the 
things you try to do is get in the mind of the trial judge when 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



you reach your decisions on suitability? 

MR. MUNOZ: I recall making a statement like 
that, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is that what you think? 

MR. MUNOZ: Pardon me? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's what you think? In 
other words, you made the statement — 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The letter from the trail judge 
supported giving parole. 

MR. MUNOZ: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The judge ordered you to set a 
date for parole, and you did that? 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir; .that's correct. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Did the judge order you to find 
Mr. Rosenkrantz suitable? 

MR. MUNOZ: No, sir. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Did you do that? 

MR. MUNOZ: Mr. Rosenkrantz was found unsuitable. 

SENATOR LEWIS: So, you believe that you abided 
by the exact order of the court? 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir, I do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why would you set a date if you 
didn't think somebody was suitable? 

MR. MUNOZ: To comply with the court order, sir. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The court screwed up. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, they have to 



come back and order you to find him suitable for you to find him 
suitable? 

MR. MUNOZ: I suppose that's an option for the 
court to do — to do that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, let me just say this. 

I've had discussions with the Governor's Office 
and with the Secretary about the whole process that you have — 
and not just you, the people that have been there before you. 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But, you know, there ought to 
be a decision to review guidelines. Should be, like, narrow 
focused on parole plans, ensuring that relevant, reliable 
information related directly to suitability should be used. 
That there ought to be process changes, that the inmate should 
be allowed to respond to any new evidence before the decision's 
made, without having to go through a new hearing or appeal 
process. 

And we're concerned, although the statute does 
require it, that a commissioner who denies parole, or even 
grants parole, but I guess denies parole, and he's sitting, it's 
like having a trial judge sit on the appeal court. I mean, you 
already made your decision. Again, it's part of the process. 

And Members of the Committee are going to vote to 
send you to the Floor. I personally will not vote for you on 
the Floor. That's me. 

But I've made it very clear that if there are not 
reforms in the process, because the Governor has his point of 
view, which is his point of view, and he's allowed, certainly, 



to implement his own vision on this, is that if the Board grants 
paroles, he can always deny. The grant dates he can deny. 

But if the process is not changed, as far as I'm 
concerned, I'm never going to see another Board of Prison Terms 
member sitting before me, no matter who it is, because we don't 
need it. 

If there would be a way to basically do some of 
the other duties of the Board of Prison Terms, I'd just as soon 
zero it out, save the money, and put it into special education. 

But, you know, I think that I have great faith in 
Mr. Presley. I've made my feelings known to the Governor's 
Office, and I'm not interested in prolonging, or shortening in 
this case, your situation. 

But, I mean, it's a matter of the record that if 
there are not procedural changes, and that doesn't mean 
everybody's got to get a date, and everybody's got to get out. 
Nobody's looking for Charles Manson to be out on the streets. 

But there are a whole lot of people that should 
be, which is, one, the right thing to do; and two, it would be 
saving the state money; and three, you know, you made your 
position, I think, on the women down at Frontera, and the 
battered women syndrome, that you, at least, had some sympathy 
toward those issues without prejudging any case. 

You are familiar with the women who are down 
there; right? 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Especially the ones who were 
convicted prior to the availability of that defense. 



6 

MR. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I'm hoping to introduce 
legislation will that would put that affirmative defense, that's 
available now, at the time of one of your criteria of 
considerations, so that's clear. 

Are there, briefly, any other witnesses here who 



want to talk? 



Okay, Senator Lewis? Anybody? 

SENATOR LEWIS: What would be proper motion be? 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Move to send it to it Floor. 
SENATOR LEWIS: I make that motion. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 
SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 
SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton No. Four to one. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 
MR. MUNOZ: Thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 9:25 A.M.] 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

y^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of yiftfUj^^ 2000. 




I]— 




5AK 
•thand Reporter 



399-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 399-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE.RULES COMMITTEE 



STATE OF.CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUN 2 6 2C30 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000 
2:04 P.M. 



400-R 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000 
2:04 P.M. 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 



SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK O'CONNELL 

MEMBER ABSENT 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

CATHERINE CAMPI SI, Ph.D., Director 
Department of Rehabilitation 

SENATE WES CHESBRO 

CAROL BRADLEY 

California Foundation for Independent Living Centers 

PAT McPARTLAND 

Californians for Disability Rights 

DAN KAISER 

California Council for the Blind 

JIM WILLOWS, President 

National Federation of the Blind of California 



Ill 



VICKI SHADD 
Work Ability I 

DWIGHT HANSEN 

California Rehabilitation Association 

LYNDA BARDIS, President 
Disabled in State Service 

IRENE GUTIERREZ -GARZA, Co-Chair 

California Coalition of Minorities, Women, and 

Disabled Persons 
Vice President, Cafe de California 

DAVID DeLEONARDIS 

California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies 

SAM SEATON, Vice Chair 
State Rehabilitation Council 
Department of Rehabilitation 

SHERI FARINHA MUTTI 

California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing, Inc. 

DR. JEANNE HEYERICK 

Brain Injury Association of California 

JIM HUYEK, Executive Director 

Alta California Regional Center, Sacramento 

SAMUEL SCHUCHAT, Member, 
Fish and Game Commission 

SENATOR DON PERATA 

COREY BROWN 

Trust for Public Land 

BILL GAINES, Director 

Government Affairs 

California Waterfowl Association 

LYNN SADLER, Executive Director 
Mountain Lion Foundation 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

CATHERINE CAMPISI, Ph.D., Director 

Department of Rehabilitation 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR WES CHESBRO 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Reducing Vacancy Rate in Department 4 

Master's Degree in Counseling 5 

Role of Department in Assuring State 

Agencies Follow Mandates of ADA 6 

Interaction with Board of Prison Terms 7 

Recommendation to Change Process of 

Determining Severity of Disability 7 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

State Auditor's Assertion that Department 

Does Not Effectively Monitor Cumulative 

Costs Nor Close Unreasonable Cases 8 

Witnesses in Support: 

CAROL BRADLEY 

California Foundation for Independent 

Living Centers 9 

PAT McPARTLAND 

Californians for Disability Rights 10 

DAN KAISER 

California Council for the Blind 10 



JIM WILLOWS, President 

National Federation of the Blind of California 10 

VICKI SHADD 

Work Ability I 11 

DWIGHT HANSEN 

California Rehabilitation Association 11 

LYNDA BARDIS, President 

Disabled in State Service 14 

IRENE GUTIERREZ-GARZA, Co-Chair 

California Coalition of Minorities, Women, and 

Disabled Persons 

Vice President, Cafe de California 15 

DAVID DeLEONARDIS 

California Association of Social 

Rehabilitation Agencies 15 

SAM SEATON, Vice Chair 

State Rehabilitation Council 

Department of Rehabilitation 16 

SHERI FARINHA MUTTI 

California Coalition of Agencies Serving the 

Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc 16 

DR. JEANNE HEYERICK 

Brain Injury Association of California 18 

JIM HUYEK, Executive Director 

Alta California Regional Center, Sacramento 18 

Motion to Confirm 20 

Committee Action 21 

SAMUEL SCHUCHAT, Member, 

Fish and Game Commission 21 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR DON PERATA 21 

Background and Experience 22 



VI 



Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Criteria Used to Put Creatures on 

Endangered Species List 24 

Physical Process 25 

Determination of Boundaries for 

Endangered Species 25 

Free Fishing Licenses for Seniors 26 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Where and How to Apply for License 27 

How Information is Disbursed on 

Endangered Species 27 

Possible Recommendation to Use Large, 

Bold Type in Information Booklets 28 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Recommendation to Make Booklet Simpler 29 

Request to Simplify Booklet and 

Make It Easier for Seniors to Read 30 

Witnesses in Support: 

COREY BROWN 

Trust for Public Land 31 

BILL GAINES, Director 

Government Affairs 

California Waterfowl Association 31 

LYNN SADLER, Executive Director 

Mountain Lion Foundation 33 

Motion to Confirm 33 

Committee Action 34 

Termination of Proceedings 34 

Certificate of Reporter 35 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: First off, Governor's 
appointees, Catherine Campisi, Director, Department of Rehab. 

DR. CAMPISI: Good afternoon, Senator Burton and 
Members of the Rules Committee. 

I'm pleased to appear before you for confirmation 
as Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. I was deeply 
honored and humbled by Governor Davis' appointment of me to 
serve in this capacity. 

As my written statement to you indicates, I come 
to you as a former client of the California Department of 
Rehabilitation, a former recipient of Social Security 
Supplemental Income, a person with a significant disability 
since age 10. 

I also come to you as a person with a Ph.D. in 
social psychology, specializing in disability issues, a person 
with over 20 years of professional work in varied aspects of 
disability, policy and program development, with over 12 of 
those years at the state level, an active member in the 
Disability Rights Movement, and an advocate for persons with 
disabilities. 

As you know from my written statement, I have 
high expectations and plans for improvement of the Department of 
Rehabilitation. Our primary goals are summarized by a couple of 
things I'd like to point out. 

First of all, we have a significant need to 
increase employment outcomes for persons with the most severe 



and severe disabilities through delivery of consumer responsive 
cost effective services, and we are undertaking a number of 
actions in those areas to make our services more consumer 
responsive and cost effective. 

We need to streamline our service delivery, 
starting with the processes related to order of selection and 
the determination of severity of disability, which is required 
under the federal law. 

And we need to improve our working relationships 
with our partners in employment preparation of persons with 
severe and the most severe disabilities for work. 

I welcome the chance to lead this significant 
team effort needed to bring about these changes in the 
Department of Rehabilitation. 

Thank you today for your consideration of my 
candidacy as the Director, and I'm more than happy to answer any 
questions that you or other Committee Members may have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Doctor. 

Senator Chesbro. 

SENATOR CHESBRO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Campisi, I apologize. This is a sort of 
after-the-fact introduction here. 

It is my honor to appear before you to support 
Catherine Campisi' s confirmation as Executive Director of the 
Department of Rehabilitation. She's well qualified for this 
extremely important job. She holds a doctorate degree in 
psychology with a specialization in social psychology of 
disability. 



She has 20 years of professional experience in 
policy development and program administration for persons with 
disabilities/ including serving as both an Assistant Deputy 
Director and Deputy Director of the Department. 

She has served in leadership positions in many 
and varied professional and advocacy organizations locally, 
statewide, and at the national level. She is a well-known 
speaker and writer on disability policy and program 
administration. 

Though her resume is impressive, Ms. Campisi's 
commitment to communication and accessibility is what makes her 
best qualified for the job. 

During my short tenure in the State Senate, 
Ms. Campisi has been extremely responsive to questions and 
issues that I have raised through my position as Chair of the 
Senate Select Committee on Developmental Disabilities and Mental 
Health, as well as my membership on Budget Subcommittee Number 
3, which oversees the Department's budget. 

I've talked to many consumers, advocates, and 
service providers, all of whom report that Ms. Campisi has set 
herself apart by her determination to respond to issues directly 
and personally, which is an attribute I wish existed in a lot of 
other state departments, I might add. She is determined to be 
accessible, and it has restored a sense of confidence to the 
Department, a department which has historically often failed to 
inspire this from system stakeholders. 

If you haven't already had a chance to know her, 
I'm confident that your interaction with her today, getting to 



know her in the position, you'll be very impressed with what she 
has to offer us in the state. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Doctor, the Leg. Analyst, in 
looking at the Department and looking at the budget, they found 
that there's about a 13 percent vacancy rate within the 
Department. 

What would you do to reduce the rate, and how 
long do you think it would take before you got up to full 
complement? 

DR. CAMPISI: We are working actively on several 
measures to reduce that vacancy rate. We have been having a 
significant issue, particularly in our higher cost areas, of 
attracting people. 

The federal act requires us to try to hire people 
with a master's degree in rehabilitation and counseling. We 
currently are working with the union and our other stakeholders 
to change the classification system to create a D Class, so we 
are able to pay people, either people already in our system with 
a master's degree so they have less incentive to leave, also to 
hire and attract people to our system with a better salary based 
on their education, which is required by the federal act. 

We're currently working with DPA on that. We 
anticipate that that, unfortunately, may take up to six months. 
In the meantime, we're working with them in getting a high cost 
adjustment for several of our higher cost areas, where we've 
advertised but have had increasing difficulty, as some other 
state agencies, in hiring people. 



So, we're hopeful that that will assist us in 
bringing people to the Department. 

The third thing that we're doing is, in our 
Personnel Unit, we're adding a staff person to help us work 
directly with the universities/ which provide master's degrees 
in rehabilitation counseling to try to better attract those 
people directly into our system as they graduate. And we feel 
that this D Classification, where we can pay them a better 
salary, will assist us in that effort. So, we're hopeful that 
within six months, certainly during the coming fiscal year, we 
will make significant progress in that area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's the first nominee we've 
had in about a month who knew how to answer a question. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What an absolute pleasure. I'm 
sort of in shock, Doctor. 

Have you ever thought of running the Department 
of Veterans Affairs? 

[Laughter. ] 

DR. CAMPISI: I have my hands full with Rehab. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was that just a brilliant idea 
from the Congress that you needed a master's degree to do some 
of this? 

DR. CAMPISI: Well, the Department of 
Rehabilitation, we do provide a unique level of service. It's a 
very individualized service. And the Rehab. Act focuses on 
persons with the most severe and severe disabilities, so it does 
take someone who knows a lot about different aspects of 



disability, as well as career areas for people, assistive 
technology. 

It is a very individualized and specialized 
field. Therefore, the feeling is that at the national level, 
that persons with a master's degree have the scope of knowledge 
about various particular medical and psychological aspects of 
disability, as well as career areas, and as I said, assistive 
technology. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act, there's a 
huge base of knowledge needed to provide individualized services 
to people. This is not uncommon. 

For example, the community college system I came 
from, their counselors in the Disabled Students Programs would 
be required to have a master's degree as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does the Department of 
Rehabilitation have any role in making sure that state agencies 
live up to the mandate of the ADA? Any legal role, or just a 
moral role? 

DR. CAMPISI: We do not have a legal role. We 
have been designated as the lead in helping provide training and 
technical assistance, which we do. We have entered into a 
number of inter-agency agreements with departments to help them 
complete their self-evaluation and transition plan. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have to be asked, or can 
you insert yourself in? 

DR. CAMPISI: We generally wait until we're 
asked, although we certainly are more than willing to provide 
assistance, technical assistance, whenever the situation is 



appropriate. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have you been contacted by the 
Board of Prison Terms? 

DR. CAMPISI: Yes, we have. We, in fact, have 
been working with them to help resolve some of their issues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The State Auditor recommended 
changing the process for determining severity of disability for 
the purpose of ensuring more equitable access and to simplify 
what some think is a complex system. 

Are you taking any steps toward this end, and 
when do you think you'll be completed? 

DR. CAMPISI: Yes, we are. We already have taken 
some steps which simplified the process, but we have a work 
group, which is very actively working on this effort. We have a 
draft of a new proposal which we are currently sharing with our 
stakeholders, our advisory groups for people with different 
disabilities. 

It will require a regulation change and a new 
policy guidance, and training of all of our Department staff. 
And our timeline to have that done, we have committed both to 
the Legislature and to DSA, is to have that new process in place 
no later than April 1st, 2001. And believe me, if it's humanly 
possible, it will be sooner because I believe this is very 
important . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Campisi, the Bureau of State Audits recently 
released a report on the California vocational rehab, program. 



8 

They indicated that the Department does not effectively monitor 
cumulative costs associated with cases, and does not promptly 
close unreasonable, expensive cases that are unlikely to result 
in successful employment. 

They recommend several ways that you could more 
cost effectively manage. Are you doing anything along these 
lines? 

DR. CAMPISI: Yes,, we are. In our 60-day 
response, in our presentations to the Legislature, we outlined a 
whole series of items that we're doing. 

We have increased our management information 
reports to the district to let them monitor costs on an ongoing 
basis. We also are looking at going back and analyzing a 
significant number of cases to see where there are factors, and 
variables, and red flags that we can then teach our counselors, 
and particularly the supervisors who review the counselors' 
work, to be sort of red flags as to when the services need to 
move in another direction, and also to review and make it clear 
to our staff that when services have been provided, alternatives 
tried, that there is an appropriate time to close a case if 
people are not successful. 

We're also doing a lot of work both internal to 
our system and external in other states of trying to identify 
best practices for cost monitoring, and particularly for job 
development and placement, to better get more people into jobs. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Very good, thank you. 

DR. CAMPISI: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 



SENATOR HUGHES: She answered all the questions I 
even thought of. Thank you. 

DR. CAMPISI: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have you ever thought of 
serving on the Board of Prison Terms? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We've got jobs for you that go 
this high. 

Do you have any family present? 

DR. CAMPISI: Yes, I do. My 86-year-old mother 
is here and my husband as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you please stand. 

DR. CAMPISI: I would like to say, my mother's 
been a wonderful mentor and role model. Without my family, I 
would not have been successful. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

We have witnesses in support. 

MS. BRADLEY: Good afternoon. I'm Carol 
Bradley. I'm here representing the California Foundation for 
Independent Living Centers. 

We represent 24 centers, Independent Living 
Centers, empowering people with disabilities across the State of 
California. 

We are in support of Dr. Campisi's appointment. 
We believe she exemplifies the range of experience and 
professionalism that will greatly benefit California and the 
Department. 

Thank you. 



10 

MS. McPARTLAND: My name is Pat McPartland. I'm 
representing the Californians for Disability Rights, which is 
the oldest and largest grassroots membership association of 
persons with disabilities in California. 

And we are very much in support of Catherine 
Campisi as Director of Rehabilitation. I've worked personally 
with Catherine for many years on a wide variety of projects, and 
she is -- she exemplifies leadership and administrative 
competence. 

And I think she's a wonderful choice for Director 
of Department of Rehabilitation. 

Thank you. 

MR. KAISER: Yes, my name Dan Kaiser. I am 
representing the President of the California Council of the 
Blind and our membership as well. 

And we really support the confirmation of 
Dr. Campisi. We feel that she's very cognitive of the needs of 
the blind and visually impaired in California. 

And the main thing is, we think she'll do her 
darnedest for us, and she'll do her best. So, that's all I have 
to say. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

Next. 

MR. WILLOWS: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Jim Willows. I'm President of the 
National Federation of the Blind of California. 

We have submitted a letter to the Committee. The 
letter is in strong support of Dr. Campisi' s confirmation. 



11 

In the letter, I stressed her experience in 
working with people with disabilities, the fact that she herself 
is disabled, the fact that she has a great deal of experience in 
state government. 

We feel that she is definitely a person who 
should be confirmed for this position, and we urge your support. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

MS. SHADD: Good afternoon. I'm Vicki Shadd. I'm 
here on behalf of Work Ability I, which is a vocational 
transition program for youth with disabilities. 

We strongly endorse the appointment of Catherine 
Campisi to the State Director position. We're looking very 
forward to some strong collaborative efforts between the 
Department of Rehabilitation, the California Department of 
Education, and the Work Ability I Programs around the state 
under her leadership. 

It's exciting to have her as a partner in 
something that we feel is so important in preparing youth with 
disabilities for adult life. 

Thank you. 

MR. HANSEN: Mr. Chairman, Members, Dwight 
Hansen, representing 130 community-based private, nonprofit 
agencies serving people with developmental disabilities. The 
California Rehabilitation Association strongly supports 
Catherine Campisi. 

Over the last several years, the Department has 
earned, I think, a bit of skepticism on the part of the 



12 

administration and the Members of the Legislature. They have 
not had a good record of accurately projecting to you their 
budget needs, and that results often in threats of lack of 
service for people with developmental disabilities in the 
community. 

Since Catherine's arrival in January, however, 
there is a new wind blowing, and we have every bit of confidence 
in Catherine's ability to get this very important Department 
under control. 

Even as we speak, however, there's legislation 
going through that the Department of Finance and others are 
promoting that could be devastating. We're hoping that the 
administration as a whole would give Dr. Campisi an opportunity 
to get her arms around the Department, and allow her to correct 
some of these problems. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What legislation? 

MR. HANSEN: In particularly, in the area of 
supported employment, over the last couple of years we have been 
very successful in finding jobs — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, what is the bill? 

MR. HANSEN: The bill is AB 644, and what it 
would do would be reduce the rate paid to those who provide 
supported employment services unless the Department meets its 
budget projections. 

The problem is, the Department has been 
inaccurate in its budget projections. They simply do not have 
the technology in place to do good projections. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know who the author is? 



13 

MR. HANSEN: It's the Assembly Budget Committee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, that's what the 
administration's doing for you. Welcome to state government. 

DR. CAMPISI: We are working with them, and we 
feel confident that we will be able to have accurate 
projections. We're working very diligently. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess it's from the Assembly 
Budget Committee, it will come here, but make sure that you let 
us know if there are some problems, because, you know, we would 
like to give you a fair chance to do the job before they change 
on how the job should be done. 

Hopefully, the Governor had the faith and 
confidence to put you in charge, so he certainly ought to be 
able — maybe this is just one of the Department of Finance's 
ways of trying to save money without thinking about what the 
impact would be. 

It would be very helpful if — who is the 
Department's lobbyist over here? Do you have one? 

DR. CAMPISI: Scott Silva is our Assistant 
Director for Legislation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, well, just make sure they 
keep us apprised; okay? 

DR. CAMPISI: Absolutely. 

MR. HANSEN: Thank you, Senator. We have every 
confidence that Dr. Campisi can do this job, and we endorse her 
strongly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Other witnesses. 



14 

Tell me that's not Lynda Bardis. 

MS. BARDIS: It's not Lynda Bardis. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Looks like Lynda Bardis. 

MS. BARDIS: Hi, it's been a long time. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm 
Lynda Bardis, and I'm here — 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. BARDIS: You got me. This is a new 
incarnation, however. 

I'm here representing Disabled in State Service, 
a recognized employee association. I'm here to express our 
enthusiastic support of Catherine's confirmation for two 
essential reasons. 

As a person with a significant disability, 
Catherine is intimately aware of all of the issues related to 
facing life with a disability. And she has worked — she has 
dedicated her life. She has worked tirelessly for improvement 
of opportunity for persons with disabilities, all opportunities: 
to access to the physical environment; access to information 
highway; access to financial independence through employment. 

Secondly, Catherine has held high level positions 
in two major state agencies. During that time, she has gained 
incredible experience and skill in maneuvering around the 
vicissitudes of state government, and knowing how to be an 
effective, and strong, and powerful leader in that context. 

We think that this is an invaluable and unique 
combination, and that Catherine will be a strong, successful, 
effective leader that will make the administration and the 



15 

Legislature, and all of us in California, proud. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're the only person been 
around here longer than me, Lynda. 

MS. BARDIS: Just about the same length of time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The same length of time. 

MS. GUTIERREZ -GARZA: Good afternoon. I'm Irene 
Gutierrez-Garza. I am Vice President of Cafe de California, 
and I come here as Co-Chair of the California Coalition of 
Minorities, Women and Disabled Persons. 

There's not much more I can say than what has 
already been said, but we strongly support her appointment 
because of all the things that she's achieved and done, and 
she's capable of, we feel that she has total commitment to the 
total community. And I feel that it had to be said, and that's 
all. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 

MR. DeLEONARDIS: Good afternoon, Chairman 
Burton and Members of the Committee. 

My name Dave DeLeonardis, and I am representing 
CASRA, the California Association of Social Rehabilitation 
Agencies. CASRA' s a statewide association composed of 37 
nonprofit providers of mental health and vocational 
rehabilitation services. Many of the member organizations have 
been contractors to the Department of Rehabilitation for more 
than a decade. 

We are intimately familiar with the Department, 



16 

its history, its successes, and its current challenges. Today, 
the Department of Rehabilitation needs strong leadership. It 
needs a leader with an unfailing commitment to the mission of 
the Department, with vision, creativity, and the ability to 
forge the crucial partnerships, both within and outside the 
Department that will be strategic to its success. 

We believe Ms. Campisi has these qualities. We 
therefore offer unqualified support for her appointment as the 
Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 

MR. SEATON: Good afternoon. My name Sam Seaton. 
I'm here representing the Department of Rehabilitation, State 
Rehabilitation Council. 

As Vice Chair, I'm here to tell you on behalf of 
our Council how strongly we do support Catherine's nomination to 
the Director of Rehabilitation. 

Our past experiences when Catherine was in the 
Department, she was involved with our Council, and was very 
creative, and showed a great deal of leadership. We're looking 
forward to working again with her very closely in the future. 

Thank you. 

MS. MUTTI [Through Interpretor] : Hello, my name 
is Sheri Farinha Mutti. 

And Catherine knows I don't have a male voice, of 
course . 

I'm here representing the California Association 
of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, eight 



17 

community-based organizations/ nonprofit, under the Department 
of Social Services, serving the deaf and hard of hearing 
individuals throughout all 58 counties. 

We're proud to be here, a part of this meeting, 
to support Dr. Catherine Campisi. Catherine herself has worked 
throughout her life — a very long learning experience, and a 
proof of support — to improving the lives of persons with 
disabilities for the past 20 years, she's been doing that. She 
herself is a role model to show that a person with a disability, 
when given equal access to employment opportunities, can achieve 
an appointment to a high level of government position. 

Catherine herself is a teacher and trainer in 
education, technology, and a role that the Department of Rehab, 
should play as we move forward to improve access to work 
opportunities for persons who are deaf or have disabilities. 

I applaud the Governor of California for 
appointing Catherine Campisi. There may be other individuals 
who are qualified for that position; however, picking a person 
who is most qualified and also disabled gives me hope that we 
are finally moving in the right direction. There are no others 
who can speak for, do for, and be pro-active, provide services 
to persons who themselves are deaf and disabled, than persons 
who are therefore disabled themselves. 

It makes me proud to be a citizen of this state, 
a working mother, and a wife, and a taxpayer, whose dollars will 
go toward people like Catherine Campisi 's leadership, leading 
the state and advocating for everyone. 

ADA is a law that we must continue to protect, 



18 

especially when you're talking about the Board of Prisons. I 
expect this state to stand by this small window that has allowed 
us the opportunity to be on somewhat of an equal keel with our 
hearing and able bodied peers. 

Best wishes for your official appointment, 
Catherine, and you can count on me standing by your side and 
working with you to reach the goals. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Any others? 

DR. HEYERICK: Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Jeanne 
Heyerick. I'm with the Brain Injury Association of California. 
We are the not-for-profit, all volunteer organization which 
serves all of California's citizens with acquired and traumatic 
brain injuries. 

We're happy to be here today in support of 
Dr. Campisi. We recognize that she fully well knows and 
understands that many of California's disabled populations have 
been long underserved and overlooked. And we believe that 
Dr. Campisi will, in fact, take a look at the equal right of all 
of California's population with disability, including those with 
traumatic brain injury, and will work towards giving them better 
quality to their lives as well. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Next. 

MR. HUYEK: Senator Burton and Committee Members, 
my name is Jim Huyek. I'm the Executive Director of Alta 



19 

California Regional Center here in Sacramento. 

For the disability community/ one of the most 
critical appointments is the Director of the Department of 
Rehabilitation. As the current Executive Director of Alta 
California Regional Center, and a previous rehabilitation 
counselor of the Department of Rehab, I'm well aware of the 
impact that such an agency has on the lives of individuals with 
disabilities. 

The Director of the Department of Rehabilitation 
plays the pivotal role in providing the leadership to the 
agency that will determine the effectiveness of that 
organization. 

I have known Catherine for over 20 years, both 
professionally and personally. I have the highest regard and 
respect for both her commitment to persons with disabilities, 
and her knowledge, experience, and ability to administer and 
lead. I have been in the field of disabilities over 25 years, 
and there is no professional for whom I have a higher regard 
than Catherine. 

I had the pleasure of working as a colleague of 
Catherine's, both in the Disabled Students Services Program at 
San Diego Community College District, as well as at the 
California Community College Chancellor's Office. I consider 
her one of the most outstanding people in the field. 

Without reservation, I recommend Dr. Catherine 
Campisi for the position of the Director of the Department of 
Rehabilitation. She has extensive background in the variety of 
programs directly related to rehabilitation services. Catherine 



20 

has exceptionally broad experience in disability services in the 
public sector, and will make a significant contribution to the 
Department Of Rehabilitation and to the lives of persons with 
disabilities. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are there any witnesses in 
opposition? 

SENATOR HUGHES: There dare not be. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes moves. 

SENATOR HUGHES: It's with great enthusiasm. I 
don't know when I have been as excited as I am about moving this 
nomination, because we have someone who lives the life of the 
disabled person and gives hope that all people can be able to 
cope and achieve as she has. She's an enthusiasm for all of us 
who are sitting up here who are mentally disabled. 

But it's with great enthusiasm that I move the 
nomination. 

What I like about her the most is, she knows how 
to spell my first name correctly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You left the "h" off. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 



21 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. It 
absolutely was a pleasure, believe me. 

DR. CAMPISI: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. If you've got any 
clones floating around, send them. 

Sam Schuchat, Fish and Game, representing the 
public. 

Senator Perata's here in lieu of Judge Newsome, 
who's over in Africa. 

SENATOR PERATA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
Members . 

I, too, am representing the public. As you 
probably can read for yourself in Sam's biography, he is 
eminently qualified for this position. I'm just pleased that 
someone with his background is willing to serve on the Fish and 
Game Commission. 

I know him two-fold. One, as constituent of 
mine, who didn't happen to be at home when I rang his doorbell, 
but nonetheless, assured me that he'd cast a vote. 

Secondly, and probably of equal or greater 
importance, he has spent a number of years in the direct 
advocacy for the resources in this state and in this country. 

As the Executive Director, first, in the 
California CLCV, Sam brought a keen understanding of advocacy, 
of the need to understand many points of view before arriving at 
a decision. And in every instance when I was aware of the 
decision he made, it was made in an informed, intelligent way, 



22 

but a way that cast an eye towards the future and a 
responsibility for the past. 

So, I look forward to his work on the 
Commission. I'm proud to present him here to you today. 

I also want to make mention of the fact, 
Mr. Chair, that Senator O'Connell's doing a fine job 
representing Joe Baca, a fine job. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Some guy was up here testifying 
that he's with the Baca Group. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Thank you, Don. 

Mr. Chairman and Senators, good afternoon. It's 
an honor for me to be here as you consider confirming my 
appointment to the Fish and Game Commission. 

As you know, I've been serving since October, and 
I wanted to share with you a few of my thoughts about the 
Department and the Commission. 

There are three areas that I'm interested in 
working on during my tenure. 

First of all, as you know, the Department issues 
over -- about a million hunting and fishing licenses to 
Calif ornians every year. This is the source of about a third of 
our budget . The Department has been involved for sometime in 
the process of modernizing and rationalizing our computer 
systems. I'm very interested in that. Computers and the 
Internet have revolutionized retailing, and I think it's very 
important that our Department provide the highest possible level 
of service to our customers and our constituents. And I think 



23 

that over time, in addition to making folks happy, there'll be 
some additional revenues for us if we implement these things 
properly. 

I'm also very interested in making sure that the 
Department has, in general, the revenues it needs to do its job. 
Hunting and fishing revenues have been declining and have not 
been keeping pace with California's population growth. The more 
people we have in this state, the harder it is to do what we 
need to do to protect our fish and wildlife resources. 

I think there is some private sector 
possibilities for us, and of course, I don't think that's 
sufficient. I think there'll be the need for public sector 
resources here as well. 

Finally, and I think most importantly, we all 
know that our population is growing by leaps and bounds. What I 
realized pretty quickly after I started was that despite the 
name of the Department, we actually regulate people, not fish 
and game. The more people we have, the tougher a job we have. 
And the job is much more complicated than it was a hundred years 
ago. 

Once upon a time, Californians fished and hunted 
and camped. Now, they wind surf, and sea kayak, and spear fish, 
and snorkle, and bird watch, and river raft. They do all of 
those activities. Those activities have impacts on wildlife. 

Keeping what we have and, hopefully, restoring 
some of what we've lost is the core concern of mine on the 
Commission. And I'm looking forward to working with the 
Department and with all of you to accomplish that. 



24 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Okay. 

Mr. Schuchat, the Commission determines which 
animals and plants are placed on the Endangered Species List or 
are listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species 
Act. 

What criteria do you use in order to put those on 
the Endangered Species Act or list? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: I think that the law is pretty 
clear about what the criteria are. 

Listings come to us sort of willy-nilly. Anyone 
can petition us to list a species, and then the Department takes 
a look at it and gives us a recommendation. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: When you say they look at it, 
what do you do? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: They look at what's the status of 
the species, what was its historical, biological distribution, 
what direction is the species headed in. 

I think that the biggest challenge for us is to 
figure out how to help species before they get to the point of 
needing to be 'listed. Because typically, when a listing comes 
to us, it's pretty late in the game for whatever the creature 
is. 

And I know this is a big problem with our 
fisheries. We have a number fisheries stocks that have marched 
right up to the brink. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: When somebody comes in and asks 



25 

to have a species listed, what do you physically do? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: What's the process? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yeah, that's what you physically 
do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, sometimes it's mental. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: We're given a petition to consider 
listing a species. If the Commission accepts the petition, 
then there's a time period during which the species is 
evaluated. At the end of that time period, then we decide 
whether or not the species is worthy of listing. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Do you actually go out and 
survey the area for the species? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: The Department does. We 
physically don't. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: But somebody has to — 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Somebody does, yes. 

And there's also, there's public comment for the 
petition, and then during the process of considering the 
listing, there's more public comment period. People weigh in on 
either side. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: When you do determine that there 
is a problem and the species should be listed on the endangered 
list, what kinds of boundaries do you lay out to cover that 
specific species? How do you determine those boundaries? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: I'm afraid I don't understand the 
question. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Well, a particular animal. And 
people have indicated that it is an endangered species. And 



26 

somebody has got to indicate what the habitat is of that 
species, where it lives. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Do you mean where is the species 
found? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yeah, and so now you have the 
problem of determining or establishing a boundary for that 
habitat, and how do you do that? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Well, that's done by the 
Department's biology staff. I think that they look at both 
where the species is now and also where it's been found 
historically. 

I think it's — the process is different with 
every species. Some things are much harder to figure out than 
others. Fish stocks, in particular, because they're seasonal, 
and they move around a lot, that's tough. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: You know they've got to be in 
the water someplace. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Some place, yes, hopefully. 

But I think there's no single answer for that. I 
mean, I think it varies, species to species. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: One other question. 
' And whether you have the capability or not, would 
you endorse or support free fishing license for seniors 70 years 
old and older? 

SENATOR PERATA: Oh, absolutely. Kind of like 
teachers . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I didn't ask you. 

SENATOR PERATA: Seems like a really good 



27 

political issue. Thought I'd get in front of it. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. SCHUCHAT: If my State Senator is for it, who 
am I to stand in the way? 

I think that's an interesting idea. I think it's 
worth taking a look at. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Didn't Henry Mello, wasn't that 
one of his big deals that never happened? 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Gary Condit had that bill for 
years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: At least you're getting it up 
to 70 now. You know, 65, 66, 67, are young men. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yeah, you're right. 

Okay. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I wasn't going to display my 
ignorance, but this is the only way I'm going to learn. 

I've never applied for a hunting or fishing 
license. If I wanted to, what do I do, other than make out a 
form? 

And how am I kept informed about what is on the 
Endangered Species List? How does your Department keep it us up 
to date? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: You get these licenses, typically, 
at a bait shop or an outdoor equipment store. You apply. 

When you get your license, depending on what it 
is, you are given a rule book, essentially, which changes every 
year. 



28 

The rules, particularly for fishing, are 
Byzantine. It's a pretty thick little paperback, with little 
tiny type. 

Then, for certain kinds of species, you have to 
get -- they're called different things. In the hunting world, 
you get different tags for different kinds of creatures, 
different times of year. 

For certain kinds of fish, you have to get an 
additional special permit. You have to do it every year. 

The rules are very complicated. The Department 
puts out a lot of material explaining them. 

SENATOR HUGHES: All right, you brought up a very 
good point. You said that the rules are really in tiny type. 
So, I would think a lot of retirees are seniors, and they would 
be the ones that have the luxury of fishing and hunting when 
they so desire. 

Are you going to think about recommending that 
these rules be printed in bolder type to help the people who 
might, you know, unconsciously, violate the laws because they 
haven't read this and assume that they know what those words 
mean on the line? Are you thinking about that? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Yeah. I think this stuff should 
be on the Web. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But then, some seniors aren't 
into computers either. 

What about the little book? You don't give them 
their computer to take home. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It reminds me of my brother, 



29 

that everytime I was putting together a piece of political 
literature, he used to say, "How are the old-timers south of 
Market going to read this?" 

Has anybody ever given any thought to it? I 
mean, I don't know about hunting, but fishing, especially if 
you're going surf fishing, or anything like that, I have know 
idea what's complicated about it except maybe baiting the hooks. 

Has anybody given any thought to just making this 
stuff rather simple? ' 

MR. SCHUCHAT: My understanding is that we've 
gone through cycles of complexity and simplification. 
Hopefully, we're going to start working on simplifying now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would think. I'm not a 
hunter, but I don't think anybody ever shoots a snail darter 
anyway. You know, most of the stuff on the Endangered Species 
list, unless you step on it by accident, you're not going to be 
shooting it. 

Again, fishing, I would guess, except for the 
limits in the season, there isn't a hell of a lot to it. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Where you fish, when you fish, 
what you fish for, what kind of gear you use, how many fish you 
can keep, how many fish you have to put back, all vary according 
not just to river, but actually segment of river, portion of 
beach, depending where you are in the state. 

And partly, this is because all kinds of 
different interest groups come to the Commission, and they ask 
us to do this or that, and things gets more complicated. I 
think that's the real barrier. 



30 

I don't hunt, but I have fished, and I've gotten 
California fishing licenses. The first time I did that, I got 
the booklet, and I was terrified. I was sure that I was going 
to break the law. 

SENATOR HUGHES: At least you could read it. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: At least I could read it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. Are you going to think 
about the question that you brought up? I didn't bring it up. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Tell him to do it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: All right. 

Mr. Burton and I want you to do it. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Tell Bob Hight that really, 
this stuff shouldn't be — I guess when I was fishing, it was 
less complicated, but especially if you're out surf fishing in 
the Bay and off the beaches, it shouldn't seem much. 

I guess have a separate one for each, you know, 
Feather River between Hartman's Bar and Oroville, you know, you 
got to do this. 

You could have a whole bunch of them, maybe sell 
ads in them, Sullivan's Bait Shops, stuff like that. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Our Executive Officer, Bob 
Trainer, is here. And one of my fellow Commissioners, Mike 
Flores, so we'll get right on it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, if it's not done, it's his 
fault; right? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Correct. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Don't forget the 70-year-old 



31 

free license. 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're getting back to those 
vets and Board of Prison Terms guys. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Is it true that the reason 
you weren't home when Senator Perata knocked on your door is 
because you knew he was coming? Any truth to that. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. SCHUCHAT: I was probably out campaigning for 
somebody else. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: His opponent? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Never, never. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do have family here? 

MR. SCHUCHAT: Unfortunately, I don't. I do have 
a few friends left. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, Corey, 
are you going sit there or come up? 

MR. BROWN: Hi, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, Corey Brown with Trust for Public Land. 

I've known and worked with Sam for nearly a 
decade. Great respect for him. He's very smart; he's very 
dedicated to public policy. He knows resource issues up and 
down the state. He'll make an excellent addition to the Fish 
and Game Commission. 

We urge you to confirm. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 

MR. GAINES: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Bill Gaines. I'm the Director of 



32 

1 Government Affairs for the California Waterfowl Association. 

2 As a conservation organization dedicated to the 

3 preservation and enhancement of California's waterfowl wetlands 

4 and the protection of our supporting heritage, we watch the 

5 activities of the Fish and Game Commission very, very closely. 

6 I can assure you that the appointments to that Commission 
definitely come under the microscope when it comes to our 

8 organization. 

9 We have 15,000 members statewide. Most of them 

10 are duck hunters, not of all of them are duck hunters. But one 

11 thing that they all are is, they're waterfowl and wetlands 

12 enthusiasts. 

13 As the regulatory entity responsible for the 

14 preservation and enhancement of California's natural resources, 

15 as well as a regulatory entity responsible for setting our 

16 seasons and bag limits for gamed species, the Fish and Game 

17 Commission is an entity that we work very, very closely with. 

18 When Mr. Schuchat was first appointed, we took a 

19 hard look at his resume. We had absolutely no prior experience 

20 with Mr. Schuchat. As he mentioned earlier during his 

21 testimony, he's been on the Commission since October, and during 

22 that, say, seven or eight month period, I have attended a 

23 variety of Fish and Game Commission meetings on a variety of 

24 different topics that were very close to our organization. And 

25 I can assure you that he has definitely won over our 

26 organization. 

27 Clearly, he came into this position with a strong 

28 environmental background. We were concerned that he came in 



33 

without much of a sporting background. But he has proven that 
he has a strong sensitivity to our issues, and that he is fair. 
He's a deep thinker, definitely has a thorough knowledge of CESA 
and CEQA, which are critical to an important and an effective 
Commission member. 

And as we take a look at his performance, if you 
will, over the last eight months, I am very pleased to be here 
today and to offer on behalf of the California Waterfowl 
Association our strong support to the confirmation of Samuel 
Schuchat . 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

MS. SADLER: I'm Lynn Sadler with the Mountain 
Lion Foundation, and we're also here to support Sam. 

I've known Sam, I think, ten years as well. And 
I've been to several Fish and Game Commission hearings during 
his tenure. And the most exciting thing is that he actually 
brings up issues for us to consider, which I think is the first 
time that's happened in the twelve years I've been working on 
wildlife issues. 

So, we're extremely pleased with how engaged he 
is in the subject, how well he knows it, how willing he is to 
study it. 

We don't agree on everything, probably going to 
disagree on more things, but we really appreciate the fact that 
he is on the Commission and heartily support him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to move the nomination 



34 



on behalf of seniors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 
SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell 
SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Sam. 
MR. SCHUCHAT: Thank you, Senators. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:57 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



35 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
^)S day of C ~yVL#-^u / 2000. 





/ EVELYN J.^KIZ 




C4 



Shorthand Reporter 



400-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 400-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATEJ3ULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF^CALIFORNIA 

^ty* 1 **"* DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



JUN 2 6 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2000 
2:46 P.M. 



401 -R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2 000 
2:46 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

DOUGLAS E. LAUE, Chief 
Bureau of Automotive Repair 

H. WESLEY PRATT, Director 
California Conservation Corps 

DWIGHT WASHABAUGH, President 

California Association of Local Conservation Corps 

RICHARD C. RODRIGUEZ 

Association of Conservation Employees 

TIM FRIES 

California Union of Safety Employees 

ART CASTANARES, on behalf of 
SENATOR STEVE PEACE 



Ill 



DARRYL W. YOUNG, Director 
Conservation 

SHANNON EDDY 
Sierra Club 

TIM YARYAN 

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts 

BOB HOUSTON 

Construction Materials Association 

COREY BROWN 

Trust for Public Land 

MARK MURRAY, Executive Director 
Californians Against Waste 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 



DOUGLAS E. LAUE, Chief 

Bureau of Automotive Repair 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Minimum Experience Required to Work 

Smog Check Program 1 

Proposal of New Regulation on 

Work Experience 2 

Other Controversial Elements of 

Proposal 2 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Geographical Boundaries Established in 

Smog Check II Program 3 

Only 40 Percent Effective 4 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Substandard and Dangerous Automotive 

Repairs 5 

Fraudulent Charges to Consumers 6 

Need for Consumer Protection 6 

Motion to Confirm 7 

Committee Action 7 

H. WESLEY PRATT, Director 

California Conservation Corps 8 

Background and Experience 8 



Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Average Length of Commitment 11 

Negative Reasons for Drop Out 12 

Average Length of Stay in Past 13 

Tracking of Former Members 14 

Need to Work with Budget Committee for 

Funding to Coordinate with EDD and 

Community Colleges to Determine 

Success Rate of Former Corps Members 14 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Largest Number of Corps Members 14 

Waiting List to Get In 14 

Total Corps Budget 15 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Innovative, Creative Approach 15 

Motion to Confirm 17 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Compensation for Corps Members 17 

Witnesses in Support: 

DWIGHT WASHABAUGH, President 

California Association of Local Community 

Conservation Corps 19 

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ 

Association of Conservation Employees 19 

TIM FRIES 

California Union of Safety Employees 20 

ART CASTANARES, Representing 

SENATOR STEVE PEACE 2 

Committee Action 21 



VI 



DARRYL W. YOUNG, Director 

Department of Conservation 21 

Background and Experience 21 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Williamson Act Jurisdiction 23 

$30 Million in Budget for UC Merced 23 

Request to Explain Role to Budget 

Committee 24 

Actions to Address Environmental and 

Public Safety Concerns under SMARA 24 

Reversal of Position on Bottle Bill 25 

Kool Aid 26 

Writing Laws without License 27 

Definition of Noncarbonated Soft Drink 28 

Possibility of Lawsuit 29 

Not Duty to Clarify the Law 30 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Aerosol Cans 31 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Possible List of Statutory Changes to 

SMARA 31 

Webber Creek Quarry in El Dorado 32 

Possible Actions against Mines 

Operating without Valid Financial 

Assurances 32 

Status of Webber Creek 33 



Vll 



Witnesses in Support: 

SHANNON EDDY 

Sierra Club 34 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Position on Kool Aid Issue 35 

TIM YARYAN 

California Association of Recourse 

Conservation Districts 35 

BOB HOUSTON 

Construction Materials Association 36 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Involvement with Webber Creek 3 6 

COREY BROWN 

Trust for Public Land 37 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Position on Kool Aid Issue 37 

Witness in Opposition: 

MARK MURRAY, Executive Director 

Calif ornians Against Waste 3 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Why Wait So Long to File Suit 44 

Department Went Below Level of 

Processing Fees Set in SB 332- 45 

Rebuttal by MR. YOUNG 46 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

What was Countervailing Legislative 

Intent 46 



Vlll 



Questions by SENATOR O'CONNELL re: 

What Happens on Processing Fee When 

Fund is in Red 46 

Response by MR. MURRAY 47 

Exclusion of Kool Aid Amounts to What 

Percentage of Total Recycling 47 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Process Used by Department in 

Changing the Law 48 

Who in Legislature Was Consulted 48 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Intention to Hold Appointment in 

Committee at Call of Chair 50 

No Conflicting Intent in Legislation 51 

Could Turn Surplus over to CCC 52 

Termination of Proceedings 53 

Certificate of Reporter 54 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees, Douglas 
Laue, Chief, Bureau of Automotive Repair. 

Go ahead, sir. 

MR. LAUE: Thank you, Mr. Burton. 

I'm proud and humbled to be here as Chief of the 
Bureau of Automotive Repair. 

I was attracted to the public service as a very 
young man in 1972, because of the formation of this bureau in 
the then Reagan administration. I have been with the state 
since then. 

I spent twelve years as Deputy Chief, and in 
management positions in the Bureau of Automotive Repair. Most 
recently, the last seven years as Deputy Director of the Medical 
Board of California. 

It is my goal to restore the shining star to this 
Bureau that it once was eight years ago, and to increase the 
public's access to our services, and to unleash the enthusiasm 
that I know that we have on our management, our supervisory, and 
our rank and file staff there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're with the Smog Check 
program. 

MR. LAUE: That is part of the Bureau of 
Automotive Repair; that's correct, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Smog Check thing, the law 
requires a minimum of two years' experience or something? 

MR. LAUE: The regulations as currently — 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: The law. The regulation goes 
beyond the law, so we'll go to that. 

MR. LAUE: That's correct. 

The law says at least two years of experience or 
equivalency. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why does the regulation go to 
four? 

MR. LAUE: Well, the regulations adopted prior to 
my coming here do require four. 

We have pending regulations right now which 
reduce the minimum experience requirements to one year. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How are you going to do that if 
the law says a minimum of two? 

MR. LAUE: The law says a minimum of two or the 
equivalent of, and there are equivalent exams that a mechanic 
can take that, in the belief of our engineering staff, do 
demonstrate the equivalency. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. When was that reg. 
proposed? 

MR. LAUE: The regulation was proposed, I 
believe, in January, and it's wended its way through the 
process. There are other controversial elements of that 
regulation, and it will be reheard in late June. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are the other 
controversial elements? 

MR. LAUE: There are regulations regarding the 
pricing of smog inspections at test-only facilities. The 
disallowing of a differential price being charged to the public 



if they are directed to a test-only facility, as opposed to 
whether they volunteered. And that is a regulation nat 
generated some controversy. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Laue, the Smog Check Two program, do you have 
anything to do w_~h the boundaries by which we established the 
Smog Check Two? 

MR. LAUE: In terms of the geographic boundaries, 
I believe that was determined by the law and by the request of 
the local air quality districts. 

The trouble, as you know, Senator, with drawing 
any boundary is, you create a boundary problem. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: But my concern is that I guess 
that when we drew the boundaries, we said all of L.A. County. 
That includes the desert area. And I've got places up there 
where, you know, shouldn't be concerned about Smog Check Two. 

We have areas identified within the state, like 
Bakersfield, as a dot on the a map. 

MR. LAUE: Yes. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Fresno, Sacramento. 

But L.A. County is all of L.A. County. 

I don't know why I should be a part of L.A. 
County, concerned with the Smog Check, because we're on the 
other s- le of the mountains. We don't have the same problem. 

MR. LAUE: Senator, I was not around when those 
boundaries were drawn, so I can't take ownership of that. 



SENATOR KNIGHT: Is there anything you can do 
about that? 

MR. LAUE: I can certainly check into it and see 
if there's anything within the existing law and regulations 
which would allow exemptions of additional areas, with the 
understanding — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think it needs a statute, 
because somebody's always trying to put bills in to either bring 
somebody in or take them out. For what it's worth. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I've got a whole lot of area up 
there that there's nothing. But yet, every farmer — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And we want to keep it that 
way. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes, but every farmer out there, 
though, is required to conform to Smog Check Two. And it says 
here that you're only effective 40 percent of the time, as you 
expected under Smog Check Two. 

MR. LAUE: At the current operations, based on 
the ARB study, and the Inspection and Maintenance Review 
Committee, we are somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of the 
original clean air goal that was set back in 1994, when the 
program was conceived and designed. 

I can say, Senator, too, that I've been out in 
your district. I've done roadsides there. I can tell you two 
things that are unusually characteristic about the cars from 
your district. 

First of all — and this is where the Highway 
Patrol pulls them over, and we do a voluntary inspection, smog 



inspection of the cars. First of all, they're very high mileage 
for model years. I remember that very distinctly. 

And also, even brand-new cars were quite high 
mileage. 

So, just an observation from years ago, being out 
in Palmdale-Lancaster, and working on those roadsides. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: What's that got to do with it? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He's trying to establish a 
little camaraderie; I'm not a bad guy; I know your district; it 
didn't happen on my watch, but I can look into it and find out. 

[Laughter. ] 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Let me banter with him as 
well, will you? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Be my guest. 

MR. LAUE: I'm appreciative of that, but it's 
also that smog is a product not only of the instantaneous 
pollution, but the vehicle miles driven of a car. So, a vehicle 
that's driven a lot more miles has the opportunity to pollute a 
lot more than a vehicle that's simply driven a short distance in 
an urban area, for example. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Are you aware that back in 
October, this is before you were in charge, we had a Senate 
informational hearing, and the Bureau's previous director 
testified that California consumers are paying $500 million a 
year in auto repairs that are substandard, dangerously unstable, 
and some others that had never been done. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Did you know about that? 

MR. LAUE: I am not aware of that specific 
report. 

From my dozen years' experience in the Bureau, I 
am not surprised that there are people still today in California 
that are the victims of shoddy or even fraudulent repairs. 

That's why I was attracted to the Bureau. I was 
a mechanic when I was in high school and in college, so I know 
the industry also. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You also know that we had some 
undercover stings of the auto body repair shops by Bureau 
investigators that found that fully 40 percent of the charges to 
consumers were fraudulent? 

MR. LAUE: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What are going to do about that? 

MR. LAUE: It's my understanding that Ms. Speier, 
Jackie Speier, Senator Speier, is carrying a bill which would 
establish a program whereby we would inspect thousands of 
vehicles that have undergone auto body repair, document the 
problems that we find, and also seek remedies for the consumers. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But the bill isn't law yet. So 
before that happens, are you going to do anything on your own, 
innovative or creative, to protect the consumer? 

MR. LAUE: Already have, as a matter of fact. 
Our Consumer Protection Division has been briefed twice on the 
auto body problems that we've seen. We have some major cases 
coming in this area. 

It's a, if I can use an adjective, it's shameful, 



the findings of that study. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Any other questions? 

Senator Hughes moves. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here 
you'd like to introduce. 

MR. LAUE: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do we have anyone in support? 
Anyone in opposition? 

Senator Hughes moves. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. LAUE: Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Take some of your vacation 
time, drive up to Lancaster and go out 111. 

What is that highway? Is that 111 to Lancaster? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Highway 14 is the freeway. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



8 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is the one, when you come 
off the old Grapevine, you come up, and then you shoot off into 
that wonderful -- 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Route 138 is the one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whatever it was, it was a 
wonderful ride, Pete. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: It's a death trap any more. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'll get a chance to ask the 
new Caltrans guy about that. 

Wesley Pratt, CCC. 

Welcome, sir. 

MR. PRATT: Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Burton and Members of 
the Senate Rules Committee. 

It's an honor to seek confirmation as director of 
the CCC. I believe the new millenium presents a tremendous 
opportunity to build on the CCC's history, and strengthen the 
organization as we empower our Corps members by preparing them 
for the future in educational and employment opportunities, in 
both the public and the private sector, while also preserving 
our natural environment. 

I'm placing a renewed emphasis on a commitment to 
the CCC mission of developing young adults by effectively 
improving the work ethic, offering quality educational 
opportunities, and developing work projects that provide 
employable skills as we preserve and protect our state's natural 
resources and environment. 

While we are in the Resources Agency, and 



resource conservation work provides a vehicle, our focus remains 
on developing our most valuable resource, which is our young 
people. 

The post-2000 CCC will continue with disaster 
response mandates and activities, fighting fires, floods, and 
responding to emergencies whenever needed in the state. As a 
matter .of fact, we've got two crews, probably about 40 Corps 
members, fighting fires and providing logistical support down in 
Riverside County and Inyo County. 

And you've probably read in the paper about the 
glassy-wing sharp shooter. We have young men and women who are 
actually participating in trying to ascertain the visual 
inspections of some of the wineries in Porterville and in Lodi. 

We shall improve our emergency response 
capabilities through additional training opportunities and 
improved public awareness of our efforts. 

In addition, we want to ensure that our Corps 
members can compete in the computer age as well. We will 
provide computer training, computer ownership opportunity, as 
well as develop Corps member computer repair and recycling skill 
capabilities . 

I will increase the level of private business and 
corporate support for the CCC by soliciting their active 
involvement in providing jobs to Corps members who graduate from 
the Corps with good work ethics and competent, transferrable job 
skills. We will continue to improve our environmental 
education, provide college scholarship opportunities, and job 
training and internship capabilities to ensure access to 



10 

entry-level employment in public agencies. 

And this is particularly critical in light of the 
fact that state service will experience a tremendous attrition 
in the very near future. And we mean to meet the demand with 
good entry level employees. 

Collaboration and cooperation with the local 
Corps in resource conservation work, education, and community 
service will be enhanced to the greatest extent possible in 
order to maximize the opportunities for the young adults we both 
serve. 

We'll also document our success while 
demonstrating that the CCC makes a tremendous and positive 
difference in the lives of these young people. During the 
previous administration, a poor economy resulted in a dilution 
and a diminution of quality work and environmental job training 
projects for fully prepared Corp members for successful 
education and job opportunities. 

As Director, I shall work with our Corps members 
to develop themselves to serve their communities, and to be role 
models and mentors to youth in their neighborhoods. Each one 
teach one will be our mantra for encouraging our Corps members 
to get involved. They will be encouraged and required to take 
personal responsibility, to take a look in the mirror, and make 
that change in their lives and the lives of younger Californians 
as well, because a poet once wrote, "Everyone has something to 

give. " 

We started this new millenium process by revising 
our mission to place an emphasis on Corps member development, 



11 

and Corps members engaging in meaningful work, public service, 
and educational activities that promote good citizenship, while 
at the same time, benefitting our environment, our community, as 
well as our human resources. 

In closing, I believe in the Conservation Corps 
movement, its traditions, and its ability to change lives. The 
journey to develop the CCC in the new millenium has begun, and 
your confirmation recommendation today will allow me to continue 
that journey, and to work with the Legislature, our staff, our 
Corps members, so that we can meet the various challenges and 
the new opportunities in the post-2000 era in California. 

I'd be glad to respond to any questions you may 
have . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Corps members, I think, at 
least it was thought that they would asked to make a one-year 
commitment for most of the programs. And the average length has 
been, like, I think about five-and-a-half months. 

What causes that? What can we do to correct it? 
Is it because it's easier to get, quote, "better jobs" now with 
the economy, that people are moving out to that? 

Just comm t on that. 

MR. PRATT: Okay. 

Probably about 54 percent of our Corps members 
will leave the program in 5.5 months. Part of the problem 
associated with that is, they'll be positive termination; 54 
percent of them will be positive, go on to other employment 
opportunities. They will go back to school, they'll join the 
military. And so, those are the positive terminations. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



12 

A factor that we do have to deal with is our 
retention issues in relation to continuing our program, which 
allows them the stability to function. It may very well be that 
the 12-month period, in light of this great economy that we're 
experiencing, may be a little bit too long, and perhaps we need 
to look at six months with an option for six months. 

But we have found that 50 percent of our Corps 
members, 500 Corps members a year, will continue throughout that 
year and take advantage of the programs that we offer, 
particularly the charter school. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you said that there were 
positive things, which then I assume there are, quote, "negative 
things" where kids just drop out because they don't want to be 
there? 

MR. PRATT: The drop out — part of the problem 
is that some of these Corps members have — they've dropped out 
of high school. Probably about 57 percent of them dropped out 
of high school. They really don't have the type of work ethic. 
Sometimes they figure the work's too difficult for them. There 
may be discipline problems. 

We're working to improve our program to address 
those particular areas. 

It's kinds of interesting that when we deal with 
this program, and never before in its history has it had a case 
management capability. And so, some of these young people come 
to the Corps with significant social-related problems. So, in 
the past, we've never had the capability to really deal with 
those issues. 



13 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any idea, like 
going back five years, were most of them going through a whole 
one-year stretch? 

MR. PRATT: As I recall, based on the 
conversations I've had with staff who've been there for a while, 
they've never really been there the entire year. Generally it's 
been positive terminations, and they generally move into a 
different area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it's been roughly a 
six-month deal? 

MR. PRATT: Roughly a six-month sort of 
experience. So, although maybe 500 a year will remain a year or 
longer, it probably should be modified with a six-month program, 
with an option to renew another six months. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You talked about case 
management . 

Do you do a follow-up to see how the kids do when 
they get out? Do they go to school? Do they finish school? Do 
they go to the job, they stay in the job? Do they even have 
some upward mobility? Is there any tracking, so to speak? 

MR. PRATT: There has been tracking, but to be 
perfectly honest with you, it's been so ineffective. 

Although, we do know, and we contract with EDD 
and also with the community colleges, so we'll know if they go 
into the workforce, and in fact out there working. 

We will develop a methodology to do a better job 
of documenting that, because we believe that a lot of our Corps 
members, when they terminate, they terminate in a positive 



14 

manner, which will also provide additional support. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, it might be helpful if 
you have somebody, assuming it's necessary, go to the Budget 
Conference Committee and get language in the budget that says 
EDD and community college, to get a coordinated thing. 

I think it'd be very beneficial to find out what 
the success rate is, and how they're doing. That could also 
help you get more money, because I think it's a program that I 
think a lot of people think is very worthwhile. 

I believe the more empirical evidence you have, 
the better it is. 

Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The Governor's budget includes 
funding right now for 2550 Corps members. What's the high water 
mark? What's the largest the Corps ever been? 

MR. PRATT: Probably about 2500 Corps members. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is there like a waiting list to 
get in? 

MR. PRATT: No, and over the last three months or 
so, we've experienced actually a recruitment problem. 

However, now, over the last three weeks, we've • 
seen an increase in recruitment. 

So, there's not a waiting list. Part of that may 
be in fact to a lot of people — it's kind of interesting — 
outside the Legislature sometimes, and our sponsors who work 
with us, a lot of people don't even know the Corps exists. 

I responded last week to an article that was in 
the in San Francisco Chronicle, a letter to the Editor, where 



15 

the gentleman was requesting that a program like ours be 
established. So, I responded, indicating that in fact we were 
established. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Obviously, nobody's ever talked 
to Tony Kline. Everytime he talks, he acts like it's the first 
time he's ever talked to you about it. Instead of telling me 
what he wants, he goes through the history. 

SENATOR LEWIS: What's the total budget from all 
sources for the Corps? 

MR. PRATT: From all sources, the total budget is 
about $80 million. About $51 million of that is General Fund. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you have any innovative, 
creative, new ideas is for the California Conservation Corps? 
It's been around a while. What is your approach? 

MR. PRATT: Well, I think basically part of it 
has been to be a marketing effort that really attracts Corps 
members. And although these Corps members, age 18 to 23 now, 
are of the MTV generation, they have to realize and understand 
that there is -- and they do realize; there's a notion of 
service. 

Now, I've read some surveys recently where 
youngsters in that age range, they may not want to be involved 
in the political process or the governmental process, or vote, 
or anything like that, but they want to do service. They want 
to serve, and they'll work on various projects in their various 
neighborhoods. So, we're promoting, as part of our mission, the 
idea of service. 



16 

I'm also very much interested in developing our 
educational program to the extent that we improve our 
environmental education effort, as well as look at the whole 
area of computers, computer repair. We have a program in our 
Greenwood facility center, where youngsters are actually 
repairing computers, rehabilitating them, and they're putting 
them back into the system. 

We're also looking at the possibility of computer 
recycling. That's an area that hasn't really been tapped into 
yet. We can monitor that, perhaps, having hazardous waste 
materials in those units. But that whole computer repair, 
computer processing area is an area we're working to see if our 
Corps members could be certified in doing that type of thing as 
well . 

One of the things I'm very much supportive of is 
that the state is making the investment, our sponsors are making 
an investment, and our Corps members, we be able to place them 
in entry-level positions. I figure that a young person going 
through the Conservation Corps, being certified as someone with 
good work ethics, who's gotten their GED, gotten their high 
school diploma, they're basically qualified enough for an 
entry-level position. And so, we're looking at someone working 
with, particularly Resource Agency departments, to facilitate 
their interest, and to public service, public sector jobs. 

So, some of these things are what we're working 
at, and what we're looking at, in an effort to inspire our Corps 
members. We figure that if a Corps member knows, coming into 
the program, what the opportunities that may exist for him or 



17 

her are, that they're going to be much more excited about 
staying in the course, maybe, for that six months, to that year, 
to the eighteen months to get that GED, to get that high school 
diploma, develop those skills, and then move into jobs both in 
the public sector and the private sector. 

SENATOR HUGHES: The California Conservation 
Corps has a long, wonderful history. And I'm sure that B.T. 
Collins is up in Heaven, smiling at you, and saying, "Go, guy, 
go." 

And based on that, and seeing that the President 
Pro Tern is engaged, I'd like to move your nomination. 

MR. PRATT: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Oh, go right ahead. I guess I'm 
presiding. You go right ahead. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR HUGHES: He wanted to ask a question. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

How much is the compensation for a Corps member 
over the course of a year? If they stay in for the whole year, 
what are they making? 

MR. PRATT: We pay them minimum wage. There are 
increases if they become crew leaders. 

One of the things I'm particularly interested in 
is to develop an opportunity to have merit increases and 
incentive pay for their ability to do — to gain or to 
demonstrate that work ethic, the fact that they've gotten a GED, 
the fact they've gotte:. a high school diploma. We need to build 
in merit increases and incentive pay. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 

I think, basically, we're operating at a 
disadvantage because we've got them at minimum wage. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The reason I'm asking the 
question is, unless I'm failing the new math, it appears from 
all budget sources, we're spending about $32,500 per Corps 
member, which is just more than I would have imagined. 

MR. PRATT: Well, you have to understand as well 
that our program has 11 residential centers. Those Corps 
members are in those centers 24/7. Which means that there's 
supervision provided for them, and when they're in the 
residential facilities, when they're on the grid or on the 
grade. 

And so, it's an investment of considerable 
resources, but many of our Corps members are in the 24-hour 
programs . 

SENATOR HUGHES: We've had a motion, Mr. Chair. 
I guess you want to ask some other things. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Keep this moving, will you, 
Senator Hughes. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you have any family here? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I was talking to Senator 
O'Connell about how much money there was in the budget for 
school safety. 

Now, if that's not an important issue to you, 
Senator Hughes, I want to hear it right now. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I never asked you what you were 
talking about. If you want to expose your discussion go right 






19 

ahead. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: School safety for Los Angeles 
and Orange Counties. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She wants another county into 
her program, how wonderful. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I object. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here, 



sir? 



here, sir? 



MR. PRATT: No, sir, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any supporters 

MR. PRATT: I believe there may be a couple 



supporters . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Come right up. 

MR. WASHABAUGH: Good afternoon, Chairman Burton 
and Members of the Rules Committee. I'm Dwight Washabaugh. I'm 
President of the California Association of Local Community 
Conservation Corps, representing the 11 nonprofit Corps in the 
state, in addition to the CCC. 

I'm here inform give our strong support for tne 
confirmation of Wes Pratt as Director of the CCC. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Sir. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: My name is Richard Rodriguez. 

That you for the opportunity to express our 
opinion here. 

I repiesent the Association of Conservation 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



20 

Employees, about the 200 conservationists I and lis who actually 
direct the work crews. We're affiliated with the California 
Association of Safety Employees, Unit 7. 

And I also wanted to come out and give our 
endorsement to Mr. Pratt as the Director of the CCC. 

It's our collective opinion as an association, 
and we do have opinions, that over the past few years, the CCC 
has been slowly adrift. I think that Governor Davis' choice in 
selecting Wes Pratt is a good one, and I look forward to him 
being a good selection to get us back on course. 

In the short time that we've had an opportunity 
to speak with Mr. Pratt, he's been very open, willing to hear us 
out, and has been very accessible, which is a marked contrast to 
administrations of the past. And I look forward to continuing 
the open communications. 

Again, I think that he's the guy that we want at 
the helm, and I have a lot of confidence in his abilities to do 
so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

And for the record, Senator Peace was to be here 
to introduce you, but he's hung up in the Budget Committee, 
talking about school safety, which will not be in the budget. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. FRIES: Tim Fries with the California Union 
of Safety Employees, CAUSE. 

We also support the appointment. 

MR. CASTANARES: Hello. As Senator Burton just 
mentioned, my name is Art Castanares. I'm Legislative Director 



21 

for Senator Steve Peace. He was going to be here to introduce 
Mr. Pratt. Unfortunately, the Budget Committee started a little 
late. 

He just wanted to express, we have worked with 
Mr. Pratt for the past 20 years in San Diego as an attorney, as 
a city council member, as a member of the Coastal Commission, 
and most recently, as a CEO of the San Diego Urban Corps. 

We wanted to express our support for his 



appointment. 



Conservation. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Any witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none, moved by Senator Hughes. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: . Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, sir. 

MR. PRATT: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Darryl Young, Director of 

MR. YOUNG: Good afternoon. My name is Darryl 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
1-7 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



22 

Young. 

It's a bit awkward being on this side of the 
table. For many years, as you know, I worked for the Senate. 
For six years I served as the Chief Consultant to the Senate 
Natural Resources Committee under Senator Hayden. And prior to 
that, I served for four years in the Assembly for Assemblyman 
Farr . 

In the intervening time, I worked for the Sierra 
Club as their lobbyist, and then as the Communications Director 
for Carl Pope. 

What my career has shown over this time is that I 
have an undying and unceasing commitment to environmental 
protection. The reason I asked for this Department's 
appointment is because it is involved in so many different 
things. The breadth of the Department is truly amazing. It 
goes from protecting open space and ag. land, to looking at the 
way we mine to protect water quality and the land, to looking at 
the way we protect Californians from seismic safety, to the 
Bottle Bill itself. So, there was a wide diversity of challenge 
involved in this. 

In the six months in which I've been in this- job, 
I have to say that the job has been very, very challenging. 
It's been a challenge because I've never managed 700 people 
before. The good news is that the 700 people are excited about 
the new possibilities that await us. 

I am committed to ensuring that the law is 
enforced as it relates to open space, as it relates to the 
Bottle Bill, as it relates to the mining law. 



23 

Clearly, we can do more/ and the men and women of 
the Department of Conservation are committed to that, as am I. 

So, that's my opening statement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've got jurisdiction over 
the Williamson Act and farm land preservation; right? 

MR. YOUNG: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What steps either have you 
embarked upon to protect farm lands from urban encroachment? 

MR. YOUNG: The good news is that for the first 
time, we have more financial incentives available to us. The 
most recent park bond provided $25 million to purchase 
agricultural easements. 

One of problems we've had in the past is that 
financial planners and farmers are simply not aware that these 
monies are available, so that farmers can farm in perpetuity. 

We have formed a new partnership with the Farm 
Bureau to ensure that their newsletters get this information. 
But not only that, we're working with bankers and lenders, as 
well as financial planners to understand that this is an option 
for them, so that farmers can continue to farm high quality land 
close to the urban edge. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you familiar with the $30 
million that is put in the budget in connection with UC Merced? 

MR. YOUNG: I am familiar that there is money in 
the Governor's budget to purchase a number of easements. 

But it s my understanding at this time that that 
money does not come under our purview. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whose purview does it come 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



24 

under? 

MR. YOUNG: It's something that I think the 
Resources Agency is currently working on with outside interests. 

As you know, our responsibility is two-fold. 
One, we give Williamson Act subventions to counties who 
voluntarily decide to participate. 

The other thing we do is, when farmers want to 
put their lands aside, we give them — we buy an easement from 
them to not develop that land. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, whoever is working on 
that issue better explain it to people on the Budget Conference 
Committee, because there is a concern that they're buying land 
that was supposed to be free as to something else. 

MR. YOUNG: I ' d be happy to help facilitate that 
communication . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're the agency in charge of 
the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. There's a lot of 
concern over the impact of abandoned mines on rivers and water 
quality. 

What actions have you taken or are you going to 
take to address the environmental and public safety concerns? 
Do you need new funding, new statutory authority or what? 

MR. YOUNG: We believe that there is, indeed, a 
need for additional enforcement. We're talking about a $3 
billion industry with roughly 1200 mines. Of that, the 
Department currently has less than eight individuals to regulate 
that industry. It's very difficult for us to say that we're 
doing a good job right now with that limited amount of staff. 



25 

As part of that, the Governor has requested 
additional funding. Our budget has additional funding for 
additional staff to review the financial assurances by mine 
operators. But clearly, we don't think that's enough. 

There is a statutory limit that says that we can 
charge no more than $2,000 per mine. We'd like to look at that, 
and look at other ways to fund additional enforcement. 

One of the things that my staff identified is, we 
simply don't have enough bodies to go out there and ensure that 
everyone's doing the right job. 

Let me also preface that by saying that the law 
has — as you know, the lead agency is local government. So, 
there is an uneven approach to SMARA by different governments. 
So, what we want to do is work with those lead agencies to see 
that they enforce the law properly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. 

What was your thinking when you reversed position 
on the Bottle Bill and took items out of the bill that you 
originally thought should be in the recycling area? 

MR. YOUNG: One of the things we wanted to create 
was a minimum of confusion in this program. 

I was appointed at the end of November. And we 
were faced with a decision very quickly as to what to include in 
the system and out of the system. 

The key definition you're referring to is the 
definition of what is a noncarbonated soft drink. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes. 

MR. YOUNG: And the people that were reviewing 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 

that, we came out with emergency regulations. And let me state, 
these are only emergency regulations. 

There was a great deal of confusion and concern 
that, in the case of the vegetable juices, there was not a 
specific mention of vegetable juices in the law. And therefore, 
there was potential legal challenge that would have created 
confusion among consumers and created a delay implementation of 
the law. 

So, our determination was to leave that out now. 
We have fully committed to holding hearings. This is something 
we have not done before. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't we talk about Kool 
Aid? 

MR. YOUNG: Okay, there is no legal definition 
currently of a noncarbonated soft drink. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you take a look at 
what "he people who make Kool Aid, and the founder of Kool Aid, 
talk about? They talk about it a being a soft drink. 

I mean, clearly, you know, I think that one could 
make an argument either way about carrot juice, V-8 juice. 

Kool Aid, what was the thinking about removing 
Kool Aid. 

I'm an idiot, and I found it on the web site. 
And the people in your department are pretty smart, and they 
could have figured it out. 

Kool Aid, if nothing else, is a soft drink. In 
fact, we had big discussions with the Governor and, I think, the 
industry about things like Grape Aid that people could get in 



27 

the WIC program. So, we exempted some of the large containers 
that poor families could buy. And I don't know if we were 
protecting the poor families or the people that manufacture the 
stuff and sell it, but we exempted that stuff. 

I mean, you know, Grape Aid, Kool Aid, give me a 
break. It's right here. "History of Kool Aid by Kool Aid," you 
know. It's a soft drink. 

One of the top selling products was soft drink 
syrup named Fruit Smack before they called it Kool Aid. "Kool 
Aid, a new soft drink mix introduced in 1927," frosty smiley 
pitcher. "Kool Aid expands. Kool Aid is also ready to drink. 
Kool Aid Bursts." 

First of all, if you were on this side of the 
table, we don't like bureaucrats rewriting the law because it's 
going to make it convenient for somebody. And we really don't 
like them undercutting the work product. 

And it's not like the Bottle Bill was something 
rushed through. There was a lot of talk, a lot of this, a lot 
of discussions with people in the Governor's office, and- a lot 
of discussions with the Governor's office with us. 

And now, you or the Department is being sued for 
basically writing laws without a license, I guess. 

I'm trying to figure out how that happened. I 
mean, I think you could make an argument about vegetable juice, 
but then maybe again, is that for you to decide or the court to 
decide, because you certainly didn't talk to either the people 
who wrote the bill, who spent a lot of time on it, and then Kool 
Aid, not even close. 



28 

1 MR. YOUNG: Let me say that the regulations that 

2 we adopted are emergency regulations. They're by no means 

3 permanent. It was not our intention, nor is it my intention, to 

4 subvert the intent of the Legislature, truly. 

5 CHAIRMAN BURTON: For argument's sake, I'm going 

6 to give you tomato juice and V-8. 

7 I cannot conceive of something, short of I don't 

8 know what, what Kool Aid was doing in there. What basis did 

9 you pick Kool Aid? 

10 MR. YOUNG: Kool Aid, at the time the definition, 

11 the challenge was, what was the definition of noncarbonated soft 

12 drink. 

13 I admit that, in fact, Kool Aid is probably a 

14 noncarbonated soft drink. It comes in pouch — it comes in a 

15 primarily powdered form, so it's not really a beverage 

16 container. But it if was to come in a beverage container, it 

17 . would probably be considered a noncarbonated soft drink. 

18 CHAIRMAN BURTON: If it doesn't come in a 

19 beverage container, I don't think the recycling bill said you 

20 had to recycle the Kool Aid packets that the little kids sell 

21 for ten cents now. • 

22 MR. YOUNG: That's correct, but if it were in a 

23 container, we would recommend that. 

24 Our goal is that when the final regulations come 

25 out, to include public comment and testimony of this nature to 
2 6 ensure that as many beverages are recycled. 

27 CHAIRMAN BURTON: But basically you did all this 

28 stuff to avoid, quote, "confusion". Now you're going to, as I 



29 

understand it, at least as far as Kool Aid is concerned, change 
the regulation to ad H to confusion? 

MR. YOUNG: No. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I don't know. You took 
it out so there wasn't confusion. I assume if you're putting it 
in, there'. 11 be confusion. 

Everybody, and that's overstating it, but people 
in the industry, and it was kind of understood that when this 
law took effect, that something was going to be happening when 
they went to a store. In fact, I think we even addressed some 
of the concerns that the Governor expressed about how are they 
going to know whether it's this or whether it's that. 

And it just seemed to me the action you took, 
that now subjects you to a lawsuit, which you kind of wanted to 
avoid, is really going to confuse it more than if you would have 
just straight away gone with what was thought, at least in my 
opinion. 

I'd like to go back to days of two cents and a 
nickel deposit bottle and forget everything else but it's 
beyond that. 

Go ahead. 

MR. YOUNG: The letter that we have from 
Mr. Moose, representing CAW, is very positive. They want to see 
if there's a way to work out the solution without having to go 
to court. And that is our intention. 

We are going to use the period of public comment 
to ensure that their needs are addressed, and that the 
Legislature's needs are addressed, and the public's needs are 



30 

addressed. 

It's our intention to clarify the law in formal 
regulation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't think it's your duty to 
clarify the law; I don't think. 

I think we pass laws. Court clarifies laws. I 
think bureaucrats carry out laws. 

I mean, you know, it's not your duty to clarify a 
law. It's your duty to implement the law. It's the attorneys 
for Kool Aid's duty, or V-8, to sue under the law. And it's the 
duty of the court to rule on the law. 

This letter, they believe you intentionally did 
this. It's my understanding they're going to file a suit. 

I'm personally, you know, because it wasn't 
really my deal. If it was my deal, I would have filed a suit 
the day that the reg. came out. 

But so I can clearly understand, you made these 
rulings based on your belief that there was some question? So, 
it was your duty to sort of, these are my words, rewrite the law 
so there wouldn't be any questions? 

I don't even think that the V-8 makers could have 
written a letter this long. 

MR. YOUNG: It was not our intention to rewrite 
the law. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm still getting this stuff 
from Jim Moose, which is 10-1/2 pages. 

It's not your job to clarify our laws. It's your 
job to carry them out, and then a court's job, if somebody sues 



31 

you, the court says yeah, they did it right, or the court says 
you did it wrong. 

I'm not crazy about that kind of stuff. 

Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes? 

SENATOR HUGHES: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sometime ago, there was a question about 
recycling or doing away with aerosol cans. There was a 
mechanism by which you can puncture and collapse the aerosol 
cans. 

Has that all been cleared up and we're squared 
away on that now as to what the mechanism is by which you can do 
that? 

MR. YOUNG: My understanding is that aerosol 
cans, which come under the Integrated Waste Management Board, 
not in our Department, but the process has been established. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let's get back to mining for a 
minute. 

You got the appointment when? 

MR. YOUNG: On November 23rd. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you familiar with the 
letter Senator Sher sent about possible list of statutory 
changes to the Surface Mining Act? 

MR. YOUNG: I remember seeing the letter, yes. 



32 

1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you familiar with it? 

2 MR. YOUNG: I understand ""hat there was a variety 

3 of questions about what changes would be necessary or helpful. 

4 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have anybody looking at 

5 that? Obviously, you aren't into it. Is there somebody in the 

6 Surface Mining Operations who's reviewing that? I think we're 

7 waiting for an answer. 

8 MR. YOUNG: Well, we have communicated with 

9 Senator Sher's office about the variety of changes that would be 

10 necessary. 

11 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What have you done about the 

12 Webber Creek quarry in El Dorado? 

13 MR. YOUNG: The Webber Creek quarry is a quarry 

14 that contains asbestos, which is naturally occurring. 

15 We have been ensuring that SMARA's being properly 

16 enforced. We're continuing on El Dorado County to ensure that 

17 the Webber quarry is properly reclaimed. 

18 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is it that the Department 

19 can do about some of these, you know, mines that, I guess,. 

20 aren't making any — you know, there's some mines that are 

21 operating without any valid financial assurances or without 

22 reclamation plans. 

23 What can you do? Can you shut them down or what? 

24 MR. YOUNG: In fact, one of the things that we 

25 just tested is the authority for the Department to challenge a 

26 county, which is the lead agency, to properly enforce SMARA. 

27 CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm sorry? 

28 MR. YOUNG: One of the things we've just done is 



33 

establish our legal authority to challenge counties, which are 
the lead agencies, or local governments, to enforce SMARA, to 
shut down someone who does not have a proper financial 
assurance. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you've got to sue the 
county to sue the mine owner? 

MR. YOUNG: Under the law, yes. We have to sue 
them to compel them to close down. 

The other thing we've also done is, we have added 
staff in our new budget to review financial assurances, to 
ensure that financial assurances are proper. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where is the Webber Creek 
quarry deal? 

MR. YOUNG: Webber Creek is in El Dorado County. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know that. 

Where it in the process? 

MR. YOUNG: Two things have happened. First of 
all, the State Mining and Geology Board has moved to take over 
inspection authority from El Dorado County to inspect the 
mine, to ensure that they're properly reclaiming the site. 

We also are reviewing the actions that are being 
taken by the county to ensure that if they do not properly 
operate, that they report that to the Board, and that the Board 
takes appropriate action. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They could conceivably be fined 
up to 27, 500 a day? 

MR. YOUNG: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They have gold down there? What 



34 

is it that they're doing? 

MR. YOUNG: It's rough aggregate, is my 
understanding. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're bringing enough of that 
out to be able to pay that kind of fine? 

MR. YOUNG: No, not necessarily. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they're just going to go 
hucklety-buck until they get shut down and then declare 
bankruptcy? 

MR. YOUNG: It's two things. First of all, we 
are watching that they reclaim the site properly. We are 
regularly monitoring that site and investigating it. 

Second of all, should they not properly close the 
site, we will move for penalties. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But they have been operating 
for over a year without financial valid assurance. 

MR. YOUNG: Right, and that's why the Board has 
moved against Webber. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have family here? 

MR. YOUNG: Yes, my wife is here, but I have 
witnesses as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Family first, witnesses second. 

MR. YOUNG: This is my wife, and next to her is 
whom I consider my older sister. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now your witnesses in support. 

MS. EDDY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
committee, I'm Shannon Eddy. I'm representing the Sierra Club 
today, and we do support Darryl ' s confirmation. 



35 

We've known Darryl for close to ten years as he's 
worked with the State Legislature and with the Sierra Club, and 
we know him to be creative, and fair, and hard working, 
diligent. And we're confident that given his breadth of 
knowledge of the issues, that he can handle the issues that are 
going to be coming up before the Department. 

It's also our hope that as challenges arise 
between the administration and the Legislature, that Darryl will 
do his utmost to support the environmental health of the state. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you think of the Kool 
Aid deal? 

MS. EDDY: We were surprised. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Pleasantly so? 
[Laughter. ] 

MS. EDDY: No, I wouldn't say we were pleasantly 
surprised. And this is also one of those conflicts that I was 
referring to, that bur hope is that Darryl ' s able to manage some 
of those conflicts between the Legislature and the 
administration. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No. He is the administration. 

MS. EDDY: Uh-huh. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He's not an ombudsman. He is 
the administration. 

So the conflict, unfortunately, is between the 
Legislature and the person who made _he ruling. 

Okay. We'll leave it at that. 

MR. YARYAN: Tim Yaryan, representing the 
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts today, 



36 

and our board unanimously endorsed Mr. Young's confirmation 
based on the fact that he's been able to come in and grasp the 
issues involving these districts, and has manifested great 
understanding and commitment to conservation principles. 

And I can't answer any questions on the Kool Aid, 
because I don't know anything about it. 

We urge your aye vote for his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Next, please. 

MR. HOUSTON: Mr. Chairman and Members, Bob 
Houston, representing the Construction Materials Association. 
We're the aggregate people in Northern California, from the 
Tehachapis to the — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're the what? 

MR. HOUSTON: Aggregate extraction people. 

The people that we represent are all good, 
responsible operators, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Got their financial assurances? 

MR. HOUSTON: They have no problem meeting 
whatever the Department wants. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're the white hats. 

MR. HOUSTON: We have on several occasions had 
the opportunity to meet with the Director on issues, and really 
appreciate the open discussion we've had and his ability to put 
the appropriate parties together to try and resolve issues. 

We urge his support. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're not involved with 
Webber Creek? 



37 

MR. HOUSTON: Me personally/ not at all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Nobody in your association? 

MR. HOUSTON: I'm not sure that they're a member. 
I'm really not. 

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee/ Corey Brown, Trust for Public Land, also in support 
of the -confirmation Darryl Young. 

I've known Darryl for over 18 years. I believe 
he's a very committed professional, very strong in background on 
conservation issues. I think he'll make a very good Director. 

I don't know where Webber Creek is, and we urge 
your support . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You don't know where Webber 
Creek. 

Were you pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised by 
the Kool Aid deal? I'm talking about the Kool Aid issue. 

I mean, it's funny, but it's very serious 
business for me when a bureaucrat ends up re-writing a bill that 
I spent an awful lot of time with a lot of people I'd just as 
soon not see again in life, in a small rcom, figuring we had it 
all worked out. And now see it come back at this stage of the 
game . 

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. That issue, I apologize, 
I'm not as familiar with. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're not familiar with all 
the recycling issues? You're only into land? 

MR. BROWN: That's area I work in now. The 
Department has jurisdiction over some of the land stuff. 



38 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition. 

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman and Members, Mark 
Murray, Executive Director of the environmental group, 
Californians Against Waste. 

And regrettably from my perspective, because I've 
known Darryl fcr about 13 years now, worked with him for many 
years, I need to be here asking you not to confirm him at this 
time . 

The Bottle Bill program is the largest program 
administered by the State Department of Conservation. For about 
two years, we worked on legislation to expand and reform that 
program. Senator O'Connell was very involved in that effort. 
You were involved in that effort, as was Senator Sher. 

And as I think you've noted today, that was a 
r ery complex, detailed negotiation. 

It was then very frustrating that, starting in 
December and then through February, the Department of 
Conservation took a series of actions which we believe, and we 
believe that the statute will indicate, undermines recycling, 
undermines legislative intent, and frankly, was specifically -- 
the Department took actions that they had no authority to take 
under the legislation. 

Specifically, and I'll just note two of those. 
On December 16th, the Department of Conservation announced 
processing fees on the manufacturers of glass and plastic 
beverage containers that was substantially lower than the level 
that was agreed to in SB 332, and specifically that was 



39 

specified by the statute. 

And I know, Senator O'Connell, you remember how 
we would discuss and negotiate the details, down to literally 
the thousands of dollars in terms of what manufacturer was going 
to pay what, and what recycler was going to receive what 
amount . 

And the Department of Conservation's actions 
actually lowered the amount of processing fee that glass — 
manufacturers of beverages sold and glass and plastic would pay 
by $12 million. 

The impact of that was that, number one, it 
obviously impacted the amount that they were paying, and the 
signal that they were being sent in terms of the recyclibility 
of their container, but it also puts in jeopardy funding for 
other recycling programs. 

Secondly, on February 29th, two months after the 
effective date of the statute, the Department narrowed the scope 
of containers covered by the program, and therefore, the scope 
of containers that are likely to be recycled, by ignoring the 
term, "nonrecycled soft drink containers." 

The Department, prior to February 29th, we think 
appropriately had been viewing the term "nonrecycled soft drink" 
as a catch-all phrase to cover the hundreds of containers that 
we weren't able to specify in the legislation. 

Now, we did specifically note several different 
kinds of beverage containers, but in this world of New Age 
beverages, it was just not possible for us to note every single 
possible kind of beverage. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



40 

Senator Burton, you've noted specifically the 
Kool Aid Burst, which on the package note that they are a soft 
drink. They're labeled as a soft drink on the package. Maybe 
that's one of the most egregious examples, but in general, we 
feel that the Department's original interpretation, the 
interpretation that took effect on January 1 of this year, was 
correct, that noncarbonated soft drinks was a catch-all phrase 
referring to noncarbonated, nonalcoholic beverages. 

I guess what's disturbing about both of these 
actions is, prior to the action on December 16th, regarding 
processing fees, the Department of Conservation and the 
Governor's Office was lobbied by the Glass Packaging Institute, 
and lo and behold, on the 16th, the Department of Conservation 
implemented exactly the same proposal that was developed by 
attorneys for the Glass Packaging Institute. 

Prior to the February 29th decision reversing the 
containers that were added to the program, the Department of 
Conservation was lobbied by — and the Governor's Office — was 
lobbied by the League of California Food Processors on behalf of 
the Campbell Soup Company, which makes V-8 Juice and tomato 
juice, by Kraft Foods, which makes the Kool Aid Bursts. And 
whether they actually lobbied the Department of Conservation, 
I'm not sure. 

I know they've been lobbying folks, Abbott 
Laboratories on behalf of Ensure, all products that were exempt 
under the Department's February 29th announcement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do you know that? 

MR. MURRAY: Because I've talked to all of them. 



41 

So, all of those entities had — actually, prior 
to January 1st, were lobbying the Legislature. There was a 
meeting actually at the Governor's Office, where several of 
these interests, from the one representing Abbott Laboratories 
and another representing the California League of Food 
Processors, actually were at a meeting at the Governor's Office 
a week before implementation. They wanted to talk about this 
issue. And there was some discussion of actually postponing the 
implementation at that time. 

To the credit of the administration and to 
Darryl, at that time efforts to postpone implementation were 
repelled at that time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They would have had to get a 
bill through the Legislature; correct? 

MR. MURRAY: Correct. I'm not exactly sure what 
their strategy was, what their scheme was in terms of how to not 
have a statute that was to take effect January 1, not take 
effect. But there was a letter from the California Grocers 
Association actually asking for some kind of delay. I think 
that Darryl, again to his credit, helped to assure the retailers 
in particular that there would be a smooth transition in terms 
of implementation. Frankly, that makes — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The retailers did not want — I 
think the retailers wanted another bill. 

MR. MURRAY: There we= a split between the 
California Retailers Association anc the California Grocers 
Association. I think the retailers were on board with their 
implementation. The Grocers Association had a slightly 



42 

different perspective and had actually written a letter to the 
Governor or the Department asking for a delay. 

I think that that frankly adds to the 
logicalness and the confusion that we experienced on February 
29th, when, after these scope of containers were added to the 
program, the Department announced -- on February 29th, they 
announced. that effective April 15th, the manufacturers of these 
select containers would no longer have to pay in. And sometime, 
July 15th, consumers would no longer be able to get their money 
back for these containers, providing some kind of transition. 

Retailers were, I think, immediately directed, or 
maybe they had a two-week period, to stop showing the redemption 
value on the containers. 

Frankly, I can't imagine a scenario that was more 
confusing to retailers, recyclers, consumers, than the kind of 
mid-course correction that was implemented by the Department of 
Conservation on February 29th. 

My concern has to do with recycling and getting 
containers recycled, and making sure that we have funding for 
the Conservation Corps, and Curbside Recycling, and other 
recycling programs. 

I think that, frankly, for this Committee there's 
other things to look at. One is the role and the responsibility 
of a state agency in terms of interpreting legislative intent, 
and frankly, in terms of rewriting legislation. 

A question that I have is, who is actually 
responsible within the administration for making this decision? 
I think that I've worked with Darryl for a long time, and I know 



43 

he's a good guy, and I also know that he's a very loyal soldier. 
But I still find it very difficult to believe that Darryl was 
responsible for these decisions. 

I respect him taking responsibility for it, but 
frankly, this doesn't seem like the Darryl Young that I've 
worked with for the last decade. 

Frankly, in terms of the third issue is the 
process. You know, Senator O'Connell, you had dozens of 
meetings with the various stakeholders on this issue. When SB 
332 was moving through a process, we had public hearings. We 
had opportunities for folks to comment. And we negotiated the 
details of this legislation down to the dollar. 

Yet somehow, from December 10th, when the 
Department of Conservation staff had produced a recommended 
processing fee, and December 16th, when the actual processing 
fee was announced, the staff recommendation was changed. There 
was no opportunity for comment. There was no opportunity for 
public hearing. There was no opportunity for discussion. And 
that's frustrating in terms of how is this process working. 

There doesn't seem — when the administration 
starts taking responsibility for drafting legislation, there 
really doesn't seem to be the same kind of thoughtful process 
that exists in the Legislature. 

Now, if somehow the rules have changed, and that 
that's where policy is going to be developed, I guess we'd like 
to have a heads up and understand how can we participate in that 
process, because there was no opportunity to participate in that 
process . 



44 

So again, I've known Darryl for a long time. I 
know he's a gooa guy. I supported Darryl ' s appointment to the 
Department of Conservation when he got the appointment six 
months ago because I knew that it was a Department was in 
desperate need of leadership. 

It's very frustrating to us to now have this 
situation occur over the last several months. In the next week, 
and we feel we have no other choice but to pursue this, in the 
next week, CAW will be filing suit in Sacramento Superior Court, 
challenging the Department's actions, and seeking an injunction 
on these actually two issues, the processing fee issue and the 
containers, what's in and out. 

So, thanks for your time. If you have any 
questions? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why did you wait so long to 
file suit? 

MR. MURRAY: Well, frankly, because he's a good 
guy. And, you know, we're all experiencing a bit of confusion 
as to how to deal with this administration in terms of, this is 
an administration that we have a lot of allies in, and many of 
us helped to put this administration into office. 

And it's very frustrating when, in 13 years of 
working on recycling policy with the Department of Conservation 
and the Integrated Waste Management Board, we never had the need 
to sue, whether Governor Deukmejian or Governor Wilson's 
administration. It was very awkward and frustrating for us to 
be left with this as the only avenue. And I think that we've 
determined that this is, in fact, the only avenue. 



45 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're saying that they went 
below the level of processing fees set in the bill? 

MR. MURRAY: We set a formula in the statute 
regarding the calculation of an average scrap value. The 
Department of Conservation has always determined the 
determination of scrap value as being the average amount per 
container. 

The Department of Conservation had to, in order 
to make this decision on December 16th, had to interpret the 
cost of recycling as something other than the average cost of 
recycling, which they had been using for the last decade. 

Secondly, they had to use an authority to project 
the total amount of containers that would be recycled that the 
Legislature had specifically taken a way from them. 

Thirdly, they had — the decision undermined 
clear legislative intent. As you may recall, in those — 
Senator Sher, in his testimony on the Floor of the Senate, and 
in committee, talked about reforming the processing fee to 
eliminate the disincentive for containers with high recycling 
rates. 

The way the old processing fee worked, as 
containers recycling rate increased, they had to pay a higher 
processing fee. We specifically eliminated it from the 
statute. 

The Department's December 16th interpretation put 
that back in, and they had no autho: .ty. They had no -- there 
was no provisions to allow them to make the calculations that 
they used to get to that number. 



46 

Confusing, I know. 

MR. YOUNG: We believe that we did have the 
authority in terms of legislative intent. 

We believe that there are countervailing 
legislative intents. 

One of the things we don't want to create is a 
surplus. If we calculated the monies — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you had a bill that Sher 
and O'Connell spent an inordinate amount of real time on, and 
then I spent some time on it, but they were the ones doing the 
stuff. 

Now, what was the countervailing legislative 
intent? 

MR. YOUNG: Not to create a surplus. Originally, 
the idea was to eliminate surpluses in the fund. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't remember that ever 
popping into my mind. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: As I recall, we did have a 
surplus. 

I think my concern is — and you folks are the 
experts on it, and I'm trying to forget this — the projections 
are, and the accusations are, I guess, Mr. Young, and my concern 
would be, what happens with this recalculation on the processing 
fee when that fund were in the red? And the projections, as 
I've been led to believe — I don't know at how many years, 
Mark, you might have to help me — that fund is going to run 
dry, and then what happens? 

MR. YOUNG: Then we would have to recalculate the 



47 

amount of processing payments that we'll have. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: The processing fee. 

MR. YOUNG: That's correct. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Do you have a projection in 
terms of the time, because there has been — 

MR. MURRAY: You may recall, there was a 
discussion or desire on the part of the stakeholders was to not 
to have to deal with this thing, as I think that you probably 
both share, to not have to deal with this thing for seven years. 
And we talked about being able to project it out so that we 
would have enough funding for seven years. 

Based on the return rates, and the Department 
just put out new return rates for the last half of the year, but 
prior — haven't had a chance to calculate those — but based on 
where return rates when we were negotiating this legislation, 
and as of the first of the year, this would only last us — this 
— if we took this $12 million a year and diverted it from the 
fund to offset processing fees, then that would reduce the 
period of time to as short as three years before we'd have to 
deal with this again legislatively. 

That's $12 million a year. You know, that's $36 
million in three years. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: One other question, 
Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. Young, we're into billions of pounds of 
recycling of the different material. 

Your decision to exclude the Kool Aid-like 
products is about how much of the total? 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 



48 

MR. YOUNG: Less than six percent of the entire 
market . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So it's like saying it's 
probably five percent of the entire market. 

MR. YOUNG: I don't want to be irresponsible. 
It's less than six percent. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Less than six, I've got to 
believe it's more than five. 

MR. YOUNG: More than five, that's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Five percent, that's not a bad 
chunk. 



MR. YOUNG: It's a large chunk. 
SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thank you. 

14 CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, what was the process? You 

15 assumed that there was conflicting legislative intent, so 

16 instead of maybe calling the people involved in the bill, you 

17 just figured to take the legislative intent favored by the 

18 industry? 

19 MR. YOUNG: No. In fact, we had conversations 

20 with Mr. Murray on a regular basis during this process, along 

21 with other people from industry. 

22 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other people from the industry? 

23 MR. YOUNG: And the Legislature. 

24 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who did you talk to in the 

25 Legislature that thought you were doing the right legislative 

26 intent? 

27 MR. YOUNG: We advised them that this was an 

28 issue. 



49 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wait, wait. 

Talking to me and saying, I'm going to do this, 
what do you think? Or calling me and saying, I'm doing this, 
that's not a conversation. That's an e-mail. 

MR. YOUNG: I had a conversation wi_n Kip Lipper 
from Senator Sher's office saying — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you said, "We're doing 



this." 



MR. YOUNG: We're thinking of doing this. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: And he said, that's just what 



we thought . 



MR. YOUNG: No, they were not happy with that. 

CHAIIMAN BURTON: I mean, I would have to say, 
with respect to Senator O'Connell and Sher and myself, that the 
guy who knew more about the bill was Kip Lipper. And if he said 
that isn't what we intended, where did you get the conflicting 
intent? 

I happen to believe that this whole thing — and 
like he said, we're soldiers, and we march. 

But I remember reading in the newspaper when this 
stuff was going through about who the Grocery, Manufacturers 
Association, they made a mistake of leaking a memo that they 
were going to hire a former colleague. Vic Fazio was going to 
go and deal with the Governor. And that kind of blew the whole 
thing up at that end. 

So, after we go tnrough all of the trouble to 
draft the bill, and go through all of this stuff, where I think 
at one ti: we sent a bill down to Governor Davis, then he 



50 

vetoed it. Then we had to do a rush bill then immediately/ I 
think, when Governor Davis was elected, urgency bill just to 
extend it so there wasn't total chaos. 

So, we go through all of this stuff, and then 
basically, the things that the industry could not get us to do, 
get done, and not done with public hearings. Get done against 
what we wanted to do. 

And you say, one, we want to avoid confusion. I 
think there's going to be confusion. 

That there was conflicting legislative intent, so 
you talked to a staff person, but the person who really drafted 
the bill and said that's not what we intended, so you went with 
whatever the other intent was somewhere, that nobody knew, 
without coming back to Senator O'Connell, without coming back to 
Sher. 

I'm not sure who worked on it in the Assembly. I 
think at the very end, the Speaker got involved in it through 
Patty Shifferly. 

But everybody likes you. You've got a good 
record, had a good record. Maybe got a good record. 

I'm at a loss at this point as to what to do-. I 
talked to Nettie Sabelhaus, who said we do have more time and 
meetings to consider this. 

I want to know what's happening. I mean, if you 
weren't a good guy, you'd be toast. I mean, we don't pass laws 
to have the administration bureaucrats, whoever you are from 
whatever administration, to just second-guess us and go with 
what was basically an industry way. 



51 

I mean, Kool Aid, by their own admission, is a 
soft drink. And then to talk about, well, it's in a packet. So 
I guess if it's in a packet, and you mix it with club soda, then 
it's carbonated, but we aren't recycling the packets. 

And the difference between that bottle and that 
bottle, I'm not sure. 

My inclination is to put the matter over for a 
further hearing while we figure out what to do. 

To me, it's a very egregious thing to have 
somebody just re-write legislation. It wasn't my bill, but 
nobody talked to me, and everybody knew I was somewhat involved. 
I don't think anybody talked to Senator O'Connell. I don't know 
who talked to Senator Sher. You did talk to Kip Lipper, who 
told you no. 

I would think the intelligent thing to do would 
have been — except you knew what that answer would have been, 
is to talk to Senator Sher and Senator O'Connell and say, "Look, 
I'm really confused. There's a conflicting legislative intent 
in our mind. And I'm thinking of going this way so there isn't 
a surplus. Although, clearly, the formula and prior practice 
says to go this way. Now, what are your feelings on it?" 

I think they would have told you. And I think 
it's like, I never used to ask my first sergeant in the Army if 
I could go AWOL. I just went, and said, "Nobody told me I 
couldn't. " 

So, unless there's objection by the Committee, 
I'd like to put the matter over for another hearing. 

Are you guys filing suit or what? 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



52 



MR. MURRAY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's an injunction, so it's a 
quick suit. 

MR. MURRAY: Yes, we hope. Depends on how much 
the Department of Conservation fights us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I imagine, if they think they 
were right, . I would imagine they'll fight you. 

It looked to me, on issue one, V-8, they'll 
probably fight. On Kool Aid, they probably wouldn't. On the 
processing fees, which is a big deal. 

You know, one way to deal with the surplus in 
that fund is to give more money to the CCC, because they get 

13 money out of that. 

14 MR. YOUNG: We'd like to do that, but the problem 

15 is, statutorily we can't transfer the money from — 

16 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Statutorily we can authorize it 

17 if that was a problem with the surplus. 

18 Do you see what I'm saying? 

19 MR. YOUNG: I do. 

2 CHAIRMAN BURTON: And, I mean, that's the whole 

21 genesis of the phone calls from Tony Kline, "We have this 

22 organization." What do you want, Tony?" And he goes all 

23 through, what they want is two cents more on the Bottle Bill. 

24 So, I mean, if there was a surplus, instead of 

25 turning it back to the industry that's doing pretty well, last I 
2 6 looked, we could always pass a bill and take care of the problem 

27 by helping the CCC. Would have been a win-win situation, as 

28 they say. 






53 

So, unless there is objection, we will continue 
this hearing until the call of Chair. You've got a lot of time. 
You've got until November. 

MR. YOUNG: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 4:05 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



54 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
/S __ day of C-SLUs-r-C^ 2000. 





K7ELYN J. MPZAK ^ " 

Shorthand Reporter 



401 -R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 401 -R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OFCALIFORNIA 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



L^*is/«t.fv*'*' 




JUN 2 6 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2000 
3:30 P.M. 



403-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 



ROOM 113 



SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2000 



3 :30 P.M, 



Transcribed by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

RICHARD R. BAYQUEN, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Health Services 

DENNIS FLATT, Vice President & Legislative Representative 
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. 

JULIE BORNSTEIN, Director 

Department of Housing and Community Development 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

CHRISTINE MINNEHAN, Legislative Advocate 
Western Center on Law & Poverty 

MARC BROWN, Staff Attorney 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 

SKIP DAUM 

Community Associations Institute 



Ill 



TIMOTHY M. DAYONOT, Director 

Department of Community Services and Development 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 

ART NALDOZA 
La Cooperativa 

WILLIAM F. PARKER, President 

Bay Area Poverty Resource Council 

Community Action of San Mateo, Inc. 

MARTY OMOTO, Executive Director 
California/Nevada Community Action Association 

VALERIE MARTINEZ 

Association of Rural Northern California Energy 

Providers and Redwood Community Action Agency 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

RICHARD R. BAYQUEN, Chief Deputy Director 

Department of Health Services 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Status of Compliance Monitoring of 

Nursing Home Wage Pass-Through 5 

Review of Facilities Identified by 

SEIU 6 

Department's Effort to Reduce 

Medi-Cal Drop-off 7 

Medically Needy Only Type Program 8 

Status of Barstow Veterans Home 9 

Request that Committee Receive Copy of 
Department's Survey on Barstow Home 10 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Awareness of Federal Veterans Affairs of 

Barstow Status 10 

Survey, Inspection, Evaluation 12 

Large Number of Unfilled Vacancies in 

Department of Health Services 13 

Questions by SENATOR O'CONNELL re: 

Amount of Money California Is Losing Due 

To Decertification of Barstow Home 14 

Impact on Other Veterans Homes in 

California 15 



Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Request to Inform Committee of 

Status of All Veterans Homes in 

California 16 

Witnesses in Support: 

DENNIS FLATT, Vice President 

Kaiser Health Foundation 16 

Motion to Confirm 16 

Committee Action 16 

JULIE I. BORNSTEIN, Director 

Department of Housing and Community Development 17 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 17 

Background and Experience 18 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Idea for Ongoing Funding Source 20 

Need for Multi-Family Rental Units 22 

Homeless Situation 23 

Money to Help Operate Shelters 24 

Housing bill in Sub 4 Reduced from 

750 to 650 at Department's Request 25 

How Does Funding to Developers Work 26 

Relationship between Department and 

California Housing Finance Agency 27 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Programming Funds for a 2 -year 

Development Project 2 9 

Number of Homeless in California 31 



VI 



No Idea of Success of Programs 31 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Availability of Revolving Fund for 

Nonprofits 33 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES: 

Adequate Housing for Farmworkers 33 

Department Working with Businesses 

Interested in Relocating to California 36 

Witnesses in Support: 

CHRISTINE MINNEHAN, Legislative Advocate 

Western Center on Law and Poverty 37 

MARC BROWN 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 38 

SKIP DAUM 

Common Interests Developments 3 8 

Motion to Confirm 38 

Committee Action 38 

TIMOTHY M. DAYONOT, Director 

Department of Community Services and Development 38 

Opening Statement 39 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Majority of Money is Federal 40 

Allocation of Community Grants 42 

More Money Spent on Heating or Cooling 43 

Involvement with Prop. 10 Monies 44 

Witnesses in Support: 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 45 



Vll 



ART NALDOZA 

La Cooperativa 45 

WILLIAM PARKER, President 

Bay Area Poverty Resource Council 45 

MARTY OMOTO, Executive Director 

California/Nevada Action Association 46 

VALERIE MARTINEZ, President 

Association of Rural Northern California 

Energy Providers , and 

Energy Services Director, Redwood Community 

Action Agency 46 

Motion to Confirm 47 

Committee Action 47 

Termination of Proceedings 47 

Certificate of Reporter 48 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--O0O00— 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees required 
to appear, Richard Bayquen, Chief Deputy Director, Department of 
Health Services. 

MR. BAYQUEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of Senate Rules Committee. 

I have the honor and pleasure of being before you 
today for your consideration as Chief Deputy Director of the 
Department of Health Services. 

The Department of Health Services is a very large 
and complex organization, with approximately 6,000 positions, 
and a budget of approximately $27 billion in the coming fiscal 
year. 

Its programs and services, which are among the 
most important and sensitive in state government, include: 
public health, environmental health, licensing and 
certification, and Medi-Cal. 

I sought this appointment because I want to help 
the Department fulfill its mission, which is to protect and 
improve the health of all Calif ornians . I consider this to be 
the most challenging assignment of my 27-year career in public 
service . 

My career in state government started in 1972, 
with the Department of Finance. As a budget analyst, I learned 



the budget processes of the executive and legislative branches 
of California government. 

This experience has been invaluable in my 
subsequent assignments, because an important and significant 
aspect of these assignments has been developing budget proposals 
and advocating and lobbying for resources to meet expanding 
workload and caseloads, and to improve the services and systems 
for which I have responsibility. 

In the course of my career, I have also had the 
opportunity to serve as Chief Deputy Director of three other 
health and human services departments. These departments are: 
Alcohol and Drug Programs, Developmental Services, and 
Rehabilitation. As Chief Deputy Director of those departments, 
I had numerous dealings with the Department of Health Services. 
Quite frankly, at times I was frustrated by some of those 
dealings when I felt the Department was being less than helpful 
and responsive. These diverse experiences have given me a 
unique perspective on the Department of Health Services . 

As the Chief Deputy Director of the Department, my 
primary goal is to improve the management, coordination, and 
responsiveness of the Department. Additionally, it is my goal 
for the Department to attain a high standard for the quality of 
its work. 

A key objective in attaining these goals is 
eliminating the silo mentality that I believe exists in the 



Department of Health Services and severely limits our 
effectiveness as an organization. Too often, I have seen staff 
from the Department respond to issues or problems from a very- 
limited or myopic perspective, not a singular and coordinated 
response as a Department . 

Although there is a diversity of responsibilities 
within the Department, it is all under the rubric of health, and 
our mission to protect and improve the health of all 
Calif ornians . It is necessary to cultivate and build close and 
strong working relationships among staff who work in various 
branches and divisions of the Department. I see improving 
communication and coordination as the key role of the Chief 
Deputy Director. 

In the short time that I've been with the 
Department, it became clear to me that the Department management 
did not have a good working relationship with CSEA. I have 
worked hard to improve our relationship with CSEA. Developing 
and maintaining a good working relationship with our employees 
and their representatives has been and will continue to be a 
high priority. 

Last year, I served as Chief Consultant to the 
Assembly Budget Committee. In this capacity, I became aware of 
an excessive number of vacancies in the Department of Health 
Services. In January of this year, the Department was reporting 
in excess of 1,000 vacant positions, which was more than double 



our requirements in terms of salary savings. This was 
unacceptable. 

My first assignment from the Director was to 
address and fix this serious problem. As a result of a very 
focused and intense team effort, I am pleased to be able to 
report that approximately 500 more positions are filled at this 
time. This brings our vacancies in line with our salary savings 
requirement . 

It is my job to not only secure resources to 
accomplish our mission and goals, but just as importantly, to 
ensure the prompt and proper utilization of those resources. 

California prides itself for the ethnic, cultural, 
and geographical diversity it enjoys. With that diversity comes 
responsibility to ensure that our programs and services are 
equally accessible, understandable, and appropriate for all 
Calif ornians . 

Beyond the ethnic, cultural, and geographical 
diversity, there are those Californians with disabilities that 
the Department has a responsibility to serve. Given my past 
work in the field of disability programs and services, I bring a 
keen awareness and commitment to ensuring that the programs and 
services of the Department of Health Services are accessible and 
appropriate to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. 

The Department has made improvements to see that 
our services are equally available, accessible, and appropriate 



to California's diverse population. However, I believe there is 
still much work to do in this regard, and I am committed to this 
task. 

As a long-time top level administrator in 
California public service, I recognize and appreciate the role 
and responsibility of the Legislature. As a former legislative 
staff member, I have the utmost respect for the institution. 

You have my commitment to work with the 
Legislature and its staff on both sides of the aisle in an open, 
forthright manner to bring solutions to the problems and issues 
confronting the Department and the people we serve. 

Although the Department faces many significant 
challenges, these challenges also represent significant 
opportunities for change and improvement. I believe that no 
other department touches the lives of so many Californians in 
quite the same way. 

I am honored to have this opportunity to serve as 
Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Health Services. 

If the Committee has any questions, I'll be happy 
to respond. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

What's the status of the Department's effort to 
monitor compliance with the 5 percent nursing home wage pass- 
through, enacted in last year's budget? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Senator, we have done some very, 



very preliminary audits in that regard. 

As you may know, the Governor's budget did 
propose, I believe, it was about nine additional staff, which 
would give us the capacity to do about a 25 percent audit. The 
Senate, in fact, has augmented that -- that proposal by about 24 
additional staff. 

But that is a very high priority, to make sure 
that the requirements of that pass-through are met by those 
facilities. And if, in fact, those facilities are not meeting 
that requirement, then in fact those dollars need to be returned 
with penalties. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Has the Department reviewed 
facilities that were identified by SEIU as not providing the 
pass-through? I think they gave you a list of 52? 

MR. BAYQUEN: I don't know if those were 
specifically identified by SEIU. I do know that we have 
reviewed some, but I can't say to you absolutely, sir, that they 
were the ones that were on the list from SEIU. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't it make sense if 
somebody involved, that understands whether or not there were 
pass-throughs or not, gave you a list of them, that those would 
probably be the likely subject? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Yes, sir; you're correct. And I 
will look at that, and make sure, if we haven't. I just can't 
say to you that that's absolutely the case. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: That would make some sense. 

MR. BAYQUEN: Yes , absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the status of the 
Department's effort to reduce drop-off and Medi-Cal coverage 
that's happening, you know, as they're moving from welfare to 
work, so to speak? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Well, I think, first of all, and 
most importantly, the Department has made it very clear to the 
counties that we are going to give them extra time; that people 
should not be losing their Medi-Cal eligibility as they go 
through the re-determination process . 

And, in fact, we've made accommodations for that 
as we built the current-year budget and the budget for the 
budget year . 

So, that has been, I think, very key from what we 
can do at the state level, is making it clear that they do have 
the extra time, that they do not have to move quickly on the re- 
determination process, which I think has been very confusing for 
a lot of the counties to implement. 

Beyond that, we have made it very clear -- a key 
part in this process are the counties, because to a great 
extent, they're the people who have the responsibility for 
determining eligibility for Medi-Cal. And we have also made it 
very clear to them what their responsibilities are in terms of 
ex-parte re-determinations. 



We've also made it clear, and made resources 
available to them, to do outreach; to do it in both traditional 
and nontraditional ways in the schools. I know Los Angeles 
County Public Social Services, in particular, they're going out 
and contacting families, and letting families know that health 
benefits are available to them. 

We're also making it very clear to the counties 
that, even if someone has dropped off of Medi-Cal eligibility, 
that we want them to contact those people and to see if, in 
fact, they would be able to re-establish their Medi-Cal 
eligibility. 

So, it has been a high priority and something that 
we've put a lot of focus and attention, but a key part of it is 
working through the counties. But again, I think first and 
foremost, we made it very clear that they had time; they did not 
have to take people off, and we've made resources available 
accordingly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do we still have a program 
either called or similar to Medically Needy Only? It was for 
those who were not eligible for Medi-Cal, but they were, like, 
so low on the list that we used to have a program for Medically 
Needy Only. A medical program for non-welfare recipients, in 
effect . 

MR. BAYQUEN: There are a number of Medi-Cal 
programs available for non-welfare or non-CalWORKS recipients. 



There are a number of programs that have been made available 
under Section 1931(b), where services are being provided, in 
fact, to many people who are the working uninsured. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, so that if somebody drops 
off Medi-Cal because they're into whatever they're into, they 
could, you know, be picked up by some of these programs? 

MR. BAYQUEN: If I understand your question, I 
believe so. I mean, Medi-Cal is no longer categorically linked 
to CalWORKS, and there are other categories of eligibility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they would be picked up or 
could be picked up in the other programs? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Yes, sir, I believe so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, what's the status of the 
re-inspection of Barstow? 

MR. BAYQUEN: The status of that is, the Committee 
may know, back on May the 4 th , I believe it was, Thursday before 
Senate Rules met on Secretary Alvarado's confirmation hearing, 
the San Bernardino office received an anonymous compliant that 
there had been a death at that facility that had occurred back 
in February. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're up to that. What's the 
status? 

MR. BAYQUEN: The status is that the survey has 
been completed. The survey is being reviewed before it is 
finalized and submitted to Barstow. That will be done later 



10 



this week. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Will you make sure we get a 
copy? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Yes, sir. 

And, in fact, my staff has been in touch on a 
weekly basis with Peter Hansel, to let him know our progress, 
and when to expect that progress. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let the Committee know. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Well, is the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs, Togo West, is he aware of what's going on, and 
is he willing accept what we're doing in terms of a plan or a 
program to re-institute the funding to the Barstow Home? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Well, as I understand, and the 
Federal Department of Veterans Affairs, in terms of their 
surveys, I am not going to represent that I'm an expert on that 
at all. 

But that the decision that they made last week, to 
cut off federal funds, was not in any way tied to the work that 
we have done or not done in terms of surveying that facility. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: It must mean something that we've 
done or not done. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Means something that the VA had 
not done, but not related to the survey they're doing, is what 
he's saying. 



11 



MR. BAYQUEN: They do a totally independent 
survey, and in fact, they do a much broader survey of that 
facility, as I understand. 

The responsibility the Department of Health 
Services has at Barstow as it relates to the skilled nursing 
facility are about 180 beds of that facility. And I believe 
there 're a total of approximately 400 beds there. 

The feds, when they reviewed the facility, they 
not only looked at the skilled nursing facility, but they also 
reviewed the domiciliary facility, which we do not have 
jurisdiction over. And it's my understand that a number of the 
problems and the issues that they found related to medical care 
were on the domiciliary side. 

I believe the Department of Vets Affairs is still 
in the process of submitting, or trying to submit, an acceptable 
plan of corrections to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: But as far as your end of it is 
concerned, you're happy with the way things are going? 

MR. BAYQUEN: We are completing our survey, and 
you know, it'd be premature and it would be, quite frankly, 
illegal for me to comment on that survey until that becomes a 
public document. 

But, you know, needless to say, and it was 
obviously in the press, there were some issues that were brought 
to our attention. That once those issues were brought to our 



12 

attention, we had a responsibility to go out and re-survey. 

And, in fact, it was very important, not only to 
the Department; it was important to the Governor. The Governor, 
in fact, also was a part of that decision over the weekend, 
ordering the Department of Health Services and the Inspector 
General to go out . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: What's the difference between a 
survey, and an inspection, and an evaluation? 

MR. BAYQUEN: A survey is, at least from our 
perspective, sir, is for the purposes - we do an annual survey 
on those facilities that are receiving Medicaid dollars. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: What's the difference between 
that and an inspection? 

MR. BAYQUEN: I don't know that there really is, 
you know . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Okay. 

MR. BAYQUEN: I use those terms interchangeably. 

But I think from our purposes, our responsibility 
is to do an annual survey, and then we have responsibility to do 
re-visits if they don't pass the initial survey. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: That's something like client and 
patient; isn't it? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Pardon me, sir? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: That's something like client and 
patient? 



13 



MR. BAYQUEN: Those terms are used interchangeably 
in different contexts, yes. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: One other question. 

You indicated that you had taken care of about 
half of the thousand vacant positions within your Department? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And that still leaves about 500 
or 400, whatever, but yet in the Governor's budget, he's asking 
for 500 additional positions. 

How does that figure? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Well, first of all, in terms of the 
5 00 vacancies that we have currently, the way the budget is 
structured, we have a responsibility to keep those positions 
vacant, to realize what is referred to as our salary savings. 

Even though, say, a department has 100 positions. 
We're never budgeted to fill all 100 positions. Typically, 
you're budgeted, even though you have 100 positions, you only 
have dollars to fill 95 of those positions. You don't receive 
enough dollars. 

So, we don't have the ability, from a fiscal 
perspective, to fill our remaining vacancies. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: So then, what you do is, you add 
more vacancies, so that next time you can get more money and get 
195 out of 200? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Well, the additional positions we 



14 

will be getting for the additional responsibilities. We will be 
filling those positions, again, less whatever the budgeted 
salary savings requirements are that go along with those. 

But we have, in fact, established a Recruitment 
Unit to try to expand our capability and make sure that when 
those additional resources come on board, that we're able to 
fill those very promptly. 

But at this point, we fulfilled our 
responsibility. We can't go below the budgeted salary savings. 
It's one of those anomalies in the way the budget is 
constructed, but we have filled those positions that we have the 
ability to do so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Budgets, salary savings are just 
a bogus bookkeeping deal; right? Right. 

MR. BAYQUEN: I could chat many an hour. I've 
been around the budget game for a long time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Makes no sense. They give them 
people they don't hire so they can save money. Just don't give 
them the money and leave it in the General Fund. 

Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Can I go back to Senator 
Knight's earlier question. 

Do you know how much money we're losing as a 
result of the decertification at the Barstow Home? 

MR. BAYQUEN: The decertification by the federal 



15 



government, the only thing I know is what I read in the paper 
myself Friday, which I think was $300,000 per month. Although, 
they said it was $3.4 million, not 3.6. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Will that decertification have 
any impact in terms of the Chula Vista Home, or Lancaster, or 
Ventura, or any of the others? 

MR. BAYQUEN: I don't know, Senator O'Connell. 
That's, again, an issue in terms of the federal VA. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: You're working and trying to 
restore the status of the Barstow Home? 

MR. BAYQUEN: Well, we are currently surveying, 
again, for the purposes of Medicaid certification, to see if, in 
fact, that they are in substantial compliance of that. That's 
another issue. 

I mean, we're looking specifically at SNF as 
opposed to what the feds were looking at. They were looking at 
the entire facility. 

I'm sure, from the results of our re-survey, once 
that is given to Barstow, and also from the survey that they 
have from the feds, that that will be a blueprint for additional 
work that they need to do to get federal certification from the 
VA and/or to keep our certification on Title 19 dollars, on 
Medicaid dollars. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you let us know how much 



16 

money it's going to cost, and whether or not — and I don't 
think it would -- have an impact on any of the other veterans 
homes in the state? It certainly shouldn't. 

MR. BAYQUEN: I will follow up, yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thanks. And let Senator Knight 
know about Lancaster; Senator O'Connell know about Ventura. 

MR. BAYQUEN: I'll be pleased to follow up. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any further questions? 

Do you have any family here to introduce? 

MR. BAYQUEN: I do have my wife, Cathy Kinserd, is 
here, and I'm pleased that she's here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

MR. FLATT: Dennis Flatt in support. 

I've known Richard since 1972, when he was a rare 
bird that has a lot of experience. You can't do better. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Survives all sorts of changes in 
administrations . 

Any witnesses in opposition? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. 

All Members of the Committee who voted on the 
Consent Calendar be recorded Aye. 

Congratulations . 

MR. BAYQUEN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Julie Bornstein, Director, 



17 

Department of Housing and Community Development. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I'd just like to introduce my 
cohort. I know you know about Julie Bornstein. You have her 
biography there, and you know what she can do. 

But I know some things about her that you may not 
know. One of them is, she really knows what policy means, 
because she often informs me. When I'm talking, she tells me 
what the difference is between policy and what you want to do. 

And I think she will be an excellent addition, and 
will be wonderful for Housing and Community Development because 
she knows how to get things done. 

I've seen her. She's like a dog with a bone. She 
never gives up . 

And if you want somebody to get a job done, you 
call Julie Bornstein, and it will be done. 

And I would encourage all of you to support her. 
You'll be very happy that you did. I have never grown tired of 
her, and that's saying something. We've known each other for a 
long time, and we share the same house here in Sacramento. And 
she's still fun to go out to dinner with, and to go to movies 
with. And even when we have disagreements, they're pleasant 
disagreements . 

So, I would encourage you to support her, and good 
luck, Julie. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Thank you, Senator. 



18 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead, Julie. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, I am honored to be in front of you today as the 
Governor's nominee to head up the Department of Housing and 
Community Development. 

I've given you a statement on both my short-term 
and long-term goals, and out of respect for this Committee's 
time, I'm not going to repeat anything I've given you in 
writing . 

But I did want to just lightly touch on my 
background, both before and after I served in the Legislature, 
to indicate that an interest in housing is a life-time goal, and 
a life- time interest for me. As I was working my way through 
college, I was lucky enough to get a job as a secretary in a 
construction firm, and was able to learn the details of putting 
a project together, and in that case, single-family home 
projects, from reading the plans and getting the permits. 

While in law school, I worked in the legal 
department of a real estate investment trust, and I taught real 
estate law at Cal Poly Pomona, thus giving me a good legal and 
financial foundation to understand how the industry functions. 

As a private attorney, my area of specialization 
was real estate, and I continued also to teach, teaching 
creative financing, mortgage credit for women, and a number of 
other courses at UCLA and USC extension, while practicing real 



19 

estate law in Los Angeles. 

I've been a licensed real estate broker since 
1980, and have represented lenders, developers, and individuals 
who have been involved in various and sundry aspects of real 
estate law. 

Where I really became committed to the area of 
affordable housing is when I did some volunteer work for the 
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition out in Riverside County. 
That's a nonprofit organization that started by building 
farmworker housing, but has used almost every federal and state 
housing program, administered through HCD, to provide a diverse 
set of housing options for a number of very different 
populations. They have built housing that includes supportive 
services, such as child care, medical services, housing for the 
mentally disabled, and housing for people with AIDS and other 
chronic physical disabilities. And through that, became highly 
interested in seeing what I could do in this policy area. 

Served on that board both before and after my 
legislative service, and that has sparked a true commitment to 
making sure that all Californians have housing opportunities 
that are safe, affordable, near their work, and near their 
services . 

I'm particularly honored to have been appointed by 
the Governor at this period of time because housing, more than 
ever, has become a critical need in California, and it's gotten 



20 
the attention of the business community, local government, and 
finally the press. 

We have critical needs. I am delighted to be in 
front of you in this position, hoping that we can lead this 
Department as a real active player, and the State of California 
as a real important partner, to all of the interests that will 
be necessary to address our housing crisis. 

With that, Senator, I ' d be happy to answer any 
questions . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What would be your idea for an 
ongoing funding source for housing? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Well, there are a number of 
sources that have been used throughout the country, and we are 
looking at all of them to be able to look at the relative 
advantages and disadvantages. 

Certainly, there is a lot to be said for 
identifying a permanent source. Some states, I think 12 in 
number, have used a real estate transfer tax. It's relatively 
low in amount, but it gets paid into a permanent fund everytime 
there's a real estate transfer. 

At the moment , we ' re relying on General Fund 
monies, and the Governor, of course, has suggested that our 
budget be increased $70 million ongoing, which would provide a 
substantial source, one unseen in the last two decades, to 
provide funding for affordable housing projects. 



21 



It's certainly a commitment of this 
administration. It's a personal commitment of mine to look for 
politically viable as well as practical sources of funds, to see 
if we can address a permanent source of funding. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Like what? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Well, the real estate transfer tax 
is certainly one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. Now that we've 
figured out we could get Pete Knight's vote for that, what other 
sources are there? 

That's a two- thirds vote, and that ain't 



happening . 



MS. BORNSTEIN: That's right, Senator. And it's 



important to find one that's politically viable. 

The other aspects, and certainly you know better 
than I do, but there is a fund created through the Indian Gaming 
Compacts that will create funds coming to the Legislature. 
After -- I think, the first three categories deal with 
consequences of expanded gaming in the state. Fourth category 
is as the Legislature directs. 

There is a source of fund that's already been 
designated. We don't have any history with how much it will be, 
but that is certainly a source of fund that nobody, at least to 
my knowledge, yet has addressed in directing in a particular 
way. 



22 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the administration would 
support earmarking that for housing funds? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: It's not an idea that we've had a 
chance to really bounce around yet, but it's one that would not 
require a tax increase. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But it basically would be, the 
money goes right not into the General Fund; right? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: As I understand, it goes into 
what's called a Special Distribution Fund. And whether -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which basically would be a 
General Fund. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: It is subject to — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You'd have to, one, try to pass 
a statute to basically direct it either into housing or into 
whatever . 

MS. BORNSTEIN: It's subject to appropriation by 
the Legislature. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How important do you feel the 
need is for multi-family rental units? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: I think it's an important need, 
along with the need for single-family housing. 

Our particular housing situation is of such a 
critical nature that we need a full range of housing options for 
individuals, both rental housing and single- family housing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Governor proposed 550? 



23 



MS. BORNSTEIN: The Governor's proposed a 500 
million augmentation on top of the January suggestions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He proposed a $500 million 
housing thing? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Yes, he did. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What can the Department do about 
trying to deal with the homeless situation? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: The major role of the Department 
traditionally, and one that we wish to expand, is to provide 
resources to local organizations to actually provide the 
services . 

I think the data has shown that the attempt to 
improve the situation of homeless individuals is more than just 
a shelter issue. It's a shelter plus services issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: So, we've been working with other 
organizations, both locally and at the state level, in 
partnership to try and couple that shelter with services. 

We're looking at emergency shelters for the short- 
term, longer term shelters with services to meet the more long- 
term need, and then transitional housing for those whose lives 
have been stabilized, so that they have a safe but subsidized 
area to go, with the appropriate supportive services. 

So, both financially, and then in cooperation with 
those other agencies -- 



24 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Leaving aside the other part, do 
you make money available to local either governments or local 
nonprofits to construct shelters, help operate the shelters? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: In both areas. We have a number 
of programs. Three have been -- we have three different 
programs that we've been operating now that work both to, in 
some cases, finance the use of armories for cold weather 
shelters. In others, they finance local nonprofits — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That comes out of you, or out of 
the military? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: I believe in each House right now, 
it's in a different status. In one case, it comes out of the 
military; in the other case, it's coming out of our budget. 

And there is a component in our budget to help us 
coordinate with the military. 

Some funds go to local nonprofits who have some 
other shelter alternative where armories are not available or 
viable. 

We also have proposed this year additional funding 
to provide additional facilities, as well as operational costs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One of the concerns I have is 
that when the housing bill was before Sub 4, and the Senate 
amount, I think, at that time was 750, and it got cut down to 
650. 

And I wasn't there, but I was informed that in 



25 



your testimony, you said you didn't think you could spend the 
750? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: The question was, how long would 
it take us to get — in that case, we were talking about the 
difference, I believe, between 350 million and 250 million, just 
on the multi-family program -- how long it would take us to get 
it out. 

And traditionally, these funds are continuously 
appropriated, because we -- what we do is, we finance projects 
that come to us. We want the best projects. We want a diverse 
type of project. 

From a practical matter, we don't think it's good 
public policy to put all the money out in one year, because 
frankly — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why, if it's needed, and if it's 
all right? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Because so many approvals have to 
come from other levels of government. It is, for example, 
easier to approve senior housing in some communities. 

If we did f irst-come-f irst-serve, in a one-year 
basis, there's a very good likelihood we would get a geographic 
distribution that was not necessarily responsive to the need, 
but just where jurisdictions that flooded the market with senior 
housing projects. 

In order to meet the diverse needs, and in some 



26 
cases, housing coupled with services, such as child care, or 
such as employment services, or health care in rural areas, it's 
important for us to be able to give notice to developers, who 
then can get site control, put together the other funding that's 
necessary. 

That's another element of affordable housing, is 
there ' re very few projects that have one or two funding sources. 
Most of them have several. In some cases, they have to get 
approval for tax credits, and they will be subject to deadlines 
at those funding rounds . 

If the funds are available over a predictable 
period of time, such as two or three years, then you get, we 
believe, a much better project, and you're more likely to meet 
the needs of people throughout the state. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, if you've got 650 or 700 
this year, and you were sitting on the money, next year you 
probably aren't going to get any money. Although the problem, 
you know, big problem's still there, because we'd say, well, you 
didn't spend what you got last year. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: We don't think we're going to be 
sitting on it. We'll be getting the money out on a continuous 
basis, based on the applications. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I, as the developer, I have to 
get all my entitlements, and then come to you and get the dough? 
How does it work? 



27 



MS. BORNSTEIN: Yes, and one of the things is, 
developers need to know it's here. That's one reason the 
baseline increase in the Governor's proposal's important, 
because now the developer community will know that that money 
will be here, year after year after year. 

The developer has to locate the need, get 
entitlement to the property, get the plans designed for the 
property, start the approval process at the local level, 
assembly in many cases four or five different funding sources, 
and then apply for the money from us, at the same time they're 
looking at the other funding sources . 

Again, because the need is so critical, we want to 
make sure that these projects are going to be there for the 55 
years of our af f ordability restrictions, and we want to make 
sure that they meet the need in the areas of the state where 
it's most critical. And we are dependent on the developer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In 55 years, what may be 
critical today may not be critical in 55 years. In 55 years, 
I'm sure it'll be kind of run down. 

What is the relationship with you and CHFA? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: California Housing Finance Agency? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes . 

MS. BORNSTEIN: We work in concert in a number of 
areas. They, of course, are not a General Fund agency, and they 
have a separate board. 



28 

I, by statute, have a seat on that board, if I'm 
in the position of Director of Housing and Community 
Development . 

In a number of cases, they will finance a portion 
of a project that HCD also has money in, but they — they have 
an ambitious business plan. They hope to put out over a billion 
dollars' worth of projects this year. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They get their money where? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: From bonds. They sell bonds. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Revenue bonds? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: I believe that they're bonds tied 
to the revenues off of their projects, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We found when Carnie Hodge was 
doing it, surprise, that they were building everything in Fresno 
and the Central Valley, and nothing in the urban areas. 

Is there any control or influence that HCD has 
with them, except for your vote on the board? 

I mean, that was a big thing. We constantly went 
through him in the budget hearings . 

MS. BORNSTEIN: I think, Senator, you'll find that 
isn't the case any longer. 

The board is pretty representative geographically. 
The Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing also has a 
seat, and so, we can certainly consult on those -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who's the head of the board now? 



29 



MS. BORNSTEIN: The President of the Board is 
Clark Wallace, and the Executive Director is Terry Parker. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is that a he or a she? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Terry Parker's a she. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's what Carnie was. He was 
Executive Director. They did well in Fresno by him. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: I think you'll see a geographic 
distribution now in the projects that they fund. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, his theory was, or his 
excuse was, or rationalization, and I guess there was a merit to 
it, that land was cheaper in Fresno. That's why you see that 
whole Central Valley sprawl now, where a lot of the cities kind 
of, they're in debt so much for everything they did to build, 
they can't even pay for their police departments any more. 

Senator Knight . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Well, it's interesting, but you 
know, you talk about your budget, and trying to allocate those 
funds, or at least dedicate the funds. 

My experience is that for a project, a development 
project, you're talking 18 months to two years, and that's a 
pretty fast development. A lot of them, and depending on the 
size, go a lot longer than that. 

How do you then program your funds, year to year, 
for those kinds of programs? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Senator, we would reserve the 



30 

funds when they're awarded. Once the project gets evaluated by 
our Loan and Grant Committee, and it is approved for funding, 
those funds are reserved and, in many cases, start to fund the 
project . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: They're then dedicated before the 
development has final approval? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Before the development is — when 
you say "final approval," permitted at the local level? Or are 
we talking about completed? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Permitted? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Permitted at the local level. 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Yes, often they are reserved with 
conditions pending final approval. So that if the project never 
receives its building permit from the local level, then the 
funds would revert back and be available to be loaned to another 
worthwhile project. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Then does the developer have to 
utilize his own funding mechanisms in order to carry the program 
for that 18 months or two years? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Most often, the developers — and 
most of our customer base are nonprofit, although we do deal 
with for-profits -- but they do have some funds, certainly, to 
keep themselves going. If they're nonprofits, then in terms of 
their own overhead, they have other source of funds to make sure 



31 



that they stay in business during that time period. 

We fund projects only. We don't fund the 
organization itself. We fund only the real estate project. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: One other question. 

You talked about the homeless . Do we know how 
many homeless there are in the State of California? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: It's difficult, of course, to 
count the homeless. There 're various and sundry estimates. 
We've seen estimates above 360,000, but of course, by the very 
nature of the population, it's difficult to count. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And do we know how the population 
fluctuates as a function of the various programs that we 
institute? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Well, we get feedback from 
programs as to their particular success rate. Again, it's 
always difficult to accurately measure that data. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: So , we have no idea whether what 
we're doing is going to be successful or not, or whether it ever 
is successful? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe not in this, Senator 
Knight, but Assemblyman Steinberg did a mental health deal for 
homeless, most of whom actually were vets, of mentally ill 
homeless . And they had, given the number of people they were 
dealing with, really a pretty good success rate. I forget the 
numbers, and he could give them to you. 



32 

But they literally got, like, about a couple 
hundred people off the street and into like semi -normal lives 
with the treatment and that. So, you know, it's like everything 
else. Something works; and something don't. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I'm just trying to figure out — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But that was more of a mental 
health thing than a housing thing. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I was just curious as to what 
programs do work, and what programs don't work. And which ones 
we're funding, and how that program is progressing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I would think shelter 
works only because it keeps them out of the cold weather. When 
that's all over, it isn't anything because you need the other 
stuff. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: So, we don't have any programs to 
get them off of — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, this one did, and some of 
the other stuff did. But yes, it's not an easy shot, I'll tell 
you that . 

MS. BORNSTEIN: And if I might, Senator, there's a 
program right here in Sacramento, the Cottages, that if you have 
time, you might want to take a look at. They do a very good job 
of providing the supportive services that do get people out of 
homelessness . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there a revolving fund that's 



33 

available to front some of the nonprofits to do the preliminary- 
stuff that they have to do to get into the pipeline, and then 
after they get either their loans, or who knows what, they repay 
it back? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: We have some programs that are 
predevelopment loans, but we have others that are predevelopment 
grants. Often for nonprofits, that is, of course, the riskiest. 
If a project doesn't work out, so that they don't come in for 
either construction or permanent funding, then it's very 
difficult for a nonprofit to front that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is it like a revolving fund, or 
just out of your stuff, you do a grant and you do a loan? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: We have two different funds. We 
have some funds that are loans, and those do revolve. But we 
have others that are predevelopment grants . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I am very happy to see you going 
for this position. I think you'll probably do a very fine job. 

But I'm concerned, and have been for a long time, 
about the problem with farmworker housing. And although I 
represent an urban area, I know that agriculture is the biggest 
industry in our state. 

What are you planning in the Department to try to 
help to gain more adequate housing for farmworkers? And it's 
not necessarily for families, but also for single individuals 



34 
who come at harvest time, and the horrible conditions that 
they're made to exist in. 

Do you have any plans set? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: Yes , Senator. We have three major 
approaches to farmworker housing right now. 

We have two programs that are for permanent 
farmworker families, both on the rental side and on the single- 
family side. 

One of our most successful is a self-help program, 
one that I have personal connection with because of my work at 
the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition. That's where farmworker 
families contribute their own sweat-equity, usually about 40 
hours a week, and build their own homes. And that is an 
impressive program. These are individuals who will work in the 
fields all day, and then come home at night and on the weekend, 
contribute an additional 40 hours' worth of labor to build their 
own homes. They then get a deed. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How does the state plan on 
helping them? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: The state funds those programs, 
along with the federal government and, in many cases, local 
sources. Again, no housing — affordable housing project that 
I'm familiar with has a single source of funds. 

We do have in this budget request and in the 
Governor's May Revise request, as well as the proposals that 



35 
both Houses have put into conference, additional funds for the 
farmworker program, both in the homeownership side, including 
self-help, and the rental side. 

In addition to that, for migrant farmworkers, the 
Department operates migrants — well, we fund and support 
migrant centers. We have 2 6 in this state. There is one up in 
Madison that, I think, is in today's Sacramento Bee , that 
provides very clean, safe housing for migrant families. 

I will tell you, though, you've hit on an issue 
that was one of my personal goals when I was here. And I wasn't 
here long enough to really resolve it. 

But I know out in my area in the Coachella Valley, 
every year, and we just finished grape harvest, we know that we 
need a great labor pool of migrant workers. They generally are 
single men who migrate. And we have done nothing in the area to 
prepare ourselves to house these individuals . And they are 
housed in some of the worst, Third-World- type conditions that 
one could imagine. 

And the day that I went out to take photos to 
share with my staff, it was 118 degrees when I was taking these 
photos of individuals who were in town for the grape harvest. 

So, that is something that we will look at. There 
are, I'm happy to say, some improvements in technology, where we 
can find, perhaps, some manufactured units that might work. 

But there are a number of challenges there. 



36 

There's a challenge in sites. There's a challenge in financing. 
There's a challenge in maintaining safe standards so that the 
housing remains habitable. And then there is a challenge in 
design. 

But it is one that I'm personally committed to 
working on. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

In previous administrations, when businesses were 
interested in moving to our state, someone from your Department 
would work with helping the business to locate housing for the 
employees that were moving into the state, or moving from one 
location within the state to another. 

Do you do anything like that? Or do you have any 
plans in the working? Or are you aware of any businesses that 
are interested in locating elsewhere in the state? Do you get 
involve? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: We are concerned about the 
business retention issue and business competition, given our 
housing costs. 

We have developed some good partnerships with a 
number of business organizations throughout the state. The 
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, for example, had me out to 
speak last week, to talk about what programs would be available 
for affordable housing in their community, because it is 
difficult . 



37 

The individuals whose incomes qualify them for the 
programs that our Department administers are the people who have 
essential jobs that make our communities work. People like 
accountants, and paramedics, and retail clerks, and beginning 
teachers, and firefighters. These are folks that every 
community needs to have living near their work. 

So, we've worked with a number of business 
organizations to indicate the necessity for their support to 
their local decision makers for the kinds of programs that we 
administer. 

One of the things I've done in my past was teach 
attitude change theory. So, one of the things we're trying to 
do is, stop talking about affordable housing, as that seems to 
have a stereotype that makes it harder for local decision 
makers. We're talking about workforce housing. Because in 
order to live in the programs that our Department administers, 
you are working, and you're an essential member of our 
workforce . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Actually, a friend of mine is a 
developer in Marin County who only talks about, she describes 
it, housing at $110,000. She puts the price on it. 

Witnesses in support? Ever so briefly. 

MS. MINNEHAN: I know what that means, Senator. 

Christine Minnehan, Western Center on Law and 
Poverty, in support of Julie Bornstein for the Directorship. 



3 

4 

3 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



finals today, 



38 

MR. BROWN: Marc Brown, CRLA Foundation, very 
strongly in support. 

MR. DAUM: Skip Daum on behalf of Common Interests 
Developments in thousands of neighborhoods. Particularly 
Julie's judiciousness and patient attempts at coalescing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here, 
Julie? 

MS. BORNSTEIN: No, I'm afraid my boys are taking 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about hearing from the 
opposition? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, I still move it anyway. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any opposition? 

Moved by Senator Hughes . 

Any objection to all Members on the roll be 
recorded Aye? Ayes 5, Noes none. 

Congratulations . 

MS . BORNSTEIN : Thank you very much . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Timothy Dayonot, Department of 
Community Services and Development. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. DAYONOT: Good afternoon. 

Honorable Chairman, Members of the Rules 
Committee, it is my pleasure to be here today. 



39 

I was urged by many, many of the staffers involved 
in this process to be brief. So, I timed my presentation, and 
it is two minutes and nineteen seconds. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So you didn't pay any attention 
to them? 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. DAYONOT: I can make it one minutes and 
nineteen seconds. 

As I sat in front of my computer last night, 
thinking about what to say today, it occurred to me, compared to 
the private sector, the process for selecting administrators is 
much, much different in the world of government. Five Senators 
in a public forum have the future of my career in their hands. 

I further wondered to myself, how in the heck did 
I put myself in this situation? 

And then it occurred to me that my anxiety at this 
hearing pales in comparison to what you, as Senators, endure 
when thousands of voters pass judgment on whether you should 
hold the positions you now occupy. 

This confirmation hearing is, in the truest sense, 
an exquisite example of the wisdom of our democratic process. 
That is, an ingenious check and balance between the executive 
and the legislative branch, to ensure the quality of many of the 
state's appointed officials. 

Preparing for this confirmation process more than 



3 

4 

s 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



40 
ever has led me to understand and to accept that the friction 
that sometimes occurs generates the light of truth about the 
candidate subject to review. This is a good and wonderful 
thing . 

You, the Senate, along with the Assembly, created 
the Department that I hope to continue to lead. And thus, you 
have the unquestionable right, through this confirmation 
process, to ensure that your legislative intent is administered 
by someone worthy of your collective vision. 

As to my vision for the Department, it is rather 
simple: to accomplish to the best of my abilities what you, the 
legislative branch, have already expressed so wisely in 
California law. That is, to ease the suffering and pain of 
California's poor. 

As to my background, while not particularly 
spectacular, I believe it does provide evidence of my commitment 
and passion for public sector work. 

Whatever the outcome this afternoon, I sincerely 
thank you for the privilege of being subject to the elegant 
interplay of the checks and balances of this noble and necessary- 
process . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, basically, the majority of 
your money is federal funds? 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes. In fact, of our total budget, 



41 



only 7 percent comes from General Funds . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And that would be from the 
federal weatherization programs, and — 

MR. DAYONOT: Community service block grants, 
about 50 million. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: -- low income heating — 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: -- stuff and all that? 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes. Energy assistance programs, 
another 50 million. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Community service block grants, 
is that leftover from what, the old — 

MR. DAYONOT: The old War on Poverty, Johnson's 
program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Economic opportunity program. 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes. Our Department used to be 
called the Office of Economic Opportunity. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mervin Dymally. 

MR . DAYONOT : Yes , yes . 

It is a wonderful program. And the reason I think 
that it continues to have significant value to California, it 
allows local determination as to where that money is spent. 

They come up with their plan. They decide what 
they want. They have local community leaders. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anybody want to hear a little 



3 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



42 
piece of trivia? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No, but we will. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, when Mervin Dymally was 
carrying the bill to implement the Federal Economic Opportunity 
Act, he was explaining what it did. I don't know whether you 
knew Lou Casonovich at that time looked over, and Mervin 
represented Watts at the height of the riots. He says, "What is 
it? Don't you have a bunch of Kiwanis and service clubs down in 
your area?" 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And Mervin said, "No, largely 
it's a self-help deal. Break the window and take the TV set." 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: On the community grants, do they 
go directly to a community group? Do they go through the local 
counties, or how does that go? 

MR. DAYONOT: Well, the way it works is, a 
particular entity, known as a community action agency, mostly a 
private nonprofit, sometimes a local government, has been 
designated to be the service provider in that particular county 
by law; they were grandfathered in. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And then, you would give it to 
them? 

MR . DAYONOT : Yes . 



43 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And then, they would give it to, 
like, maybe a local church feeding group? 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes. They would -- in most cases, 
they operate their programs themselves. 

What they do is, they have a committee or a 
council made up of people in poverty, and local leaders, and 
elected officials, and providers. And they come up with an 
annual plan. And they submit that plan to us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And then it would go to that 
group, and then that group would operate the programs? 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's not a funnel; it's an 
actual -- 

MR . DAYONOT : Yes . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, it's based, but 
differently, on the old structures that they have? 

MR. DAYONOT: Exactly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just out of curiosity, what do 
you spend more money on, heating or cooling? 

MR. DAYONOT: Actually in California, heating is 
the big problem. We know that in the east coast, heating is a 
big problem. 

Heating is still a problem here. There some 
cooling associated with the hotter counties. 

Weatherization component is an important part of 



44 
that, to make sure that the heat that we help pay for does not 
escape. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you do that in combination? 
Don't the utilities, a lot of them, kick in on that? 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes. There is a separate program 
operated by the utilities in California that provide for 
weatherization programs, in addition to the services that we 
provide. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you involved at all in 
implementing the Proposition 10 deal? Children and Families 
First Act? 

MR. DAYONOT: Not to my knowledge. 

We are involved with Ca 1 WORKS . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Remember Proposition 10 was on 
the ballot two years ago? It was the one that raised taxes on 
cigarettes . 

MR . DAYONOT : Yes . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And that put money into a pot. 
You people are not necessarily — 

MR. DAYONOT: We are not involved with that. 
Although, there was an inquiry to our Department to possibly 
provide some of the accounting services for that, but that did 
not materialize. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. Senator Hughes. 
Senator O'Connell. 



45 

Do you have family here, sir? 

MR. DAYONOT: Yes, I do . My wife, Carol, is here. 

My mom would be here, but she's having a hip 
operation in about 2 minutes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She could have made it. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where's the hospital? 

MR. DAYONOT: Las Vegas, Nevada. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Couldn't have made it. 

Witnesses in support? 

SENATOR POLANCO: Mr. Chairman and Members, we go 
back 20-plus years. We served under the Jerry Brown 
administration in the Community Relations Department. 

Well academically prepared. A real sense of 
community. Excellent appointee and nominee. 

Ask for your strong support. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I never knew you were in the 
Brown administration. 

SENATOR POLANCO: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Senator. 

MR. NALDOZA: Art Naldoza, La Cooperativa, in full 
support . 

MR. PARKER: I'm William Parker. I'm the 
President of the Bay Area Poverty Resource Council, and Director 
of one of the agencies that receives funding. 



18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



46 

And we are in support of Mr. Dayonot being the 
Director. We have worked with him, and he has been very helpful 
in helping us get through some of the problems that are out 
there serving the poor. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

MR. OMOTO: Marty Omoto, Executive Director, 



3 

4 

5 

7 

8 California/Nevada Community Action Association 

9 We are enthusiastically and strongly in support of 
his confirmation. Thank you. 

MS. MARTINEZ: My name is Valerie Martinez. I am 
the President of the Association of Rural Northern California 
Energy Providers, and I am also the Energy Services Director for 
Redwood Community Action Agency. 



10 

11 
12 
13 

14 

15 

16 And on behalf of the membership and my board of 

17 directors and Executive Director of RCEA, we enthusiastically 
support his confirmation. We think he has the skills, the 
knowledge, and the heart to help bring this Department into — 
what I really want to say is, we think he can do it. We think 
he's great. 

We're enthusiastic about him. We think he has the 

skills, the people skills, to bring the north shelf and central 

California together so that we can really do some good work to 

help the poor 
27 



28 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you 
Anybody in opposition? 



Aye 



47 
SENATOR HUGHES: Move the nomination. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. 
Any objection? All Members of the Committee vote 

Congratulations . 

MR. DAYONOT: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee was 

Terminated at approximately 

5:00 p.m. ] 

--00O00-- 



I 

4 
5 

6 

7 
8 

10 
II 
12 

13 
14 
15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 



2? 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



48 



CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was transcribed verbatim by me, Evelyn J. Mizak. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



s* 



this day of June, 2000. 



/ELYN J. MXZI 



*h t> 



r 

V^^gvELYN J. VLjA&K fy 
Transcriber 



-sL 






403-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 403-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUN 2 6 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, JUNE 12,2000 
3:37 P.M. 



402-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2 000 
3 :37 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 

APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

DEBRA S. FARAR, Ed.D., Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

CHARLES REED, Chancellor 
California State University System 

ALEX ARTEAGA 

California State Student Association 

SUSAN MIEISENHELDER, President 
California Faculty Association 

ELIHU M. HARRIS, Member 

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 

SENATOR DON PERATA 

CYNTHIA K. THORNTON, Member 

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 



DEBRA S. FARAR, Ed.D, Member 

Board of Trustees 

California State University 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Restriction of Access because of 

Tidal Wave II 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Restriction of Acces 3 

Definition of Place-Bound 4 

Number of Qualified Students Who 

Are Turned Away Each Year 4 

Responses by CHARLES REED, Chancellor 

California State University 5 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Current Number of Students in System 6 

Out-of-State and International 6 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Availability of Information on 

Financial Aid 6 

Unavailability of AP Courses in 

Some High Schools 8 



IV 



Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Why Haven't High Schools Been Giving Out 

This Information All Along 9 

Statements by SENATOR O'CONNELL re: 

CSU Ahead in Accommodating 

Tidal Wave II Students 10 

Commendations for Nominee 11 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

System Lucky to Have CHANCELLOR REED at 

Helm 11 

Witnesses in Support: 

ALEX ARTEAGA 

California State Student Association 12 

SUSAN MEISENHELDER, President 

California Faculty Association 12 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 14 

ELIHU M. HARRIS, Member 

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 14 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR DON PERATA 14 

Background and Experience 15 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Current Chair of Board 15 

Bilingual Services 16 

Position on Raising UI Benefits 16 

Ability to Obtain other Benefits 

While Receiving Unemployment Insurance 17 



Payment of Interest on 

Delayed Benefits 17 

Motion to Confirm 17 

Committee Action 18 

CYNTHIA K. THORNTON, Member 

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 18 

Background and Experience 19 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

How ALJs Are Chosen 20 

Motion to Confirm 21 

Committee Action '. 21 

Termination of Proceedings 21 

Certificate of Reporter 22 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: First Governor's appointment, 
Debra Farar, State University Trustees. 

Good afternoon. 

DR. FARAR: Good afternoon, Senator Burton and 
Members of the Rules Committee. 

I'm deeply honored to be considered for 
confirmation to the California State University Board of 
Trustees. 

I would like to thank the Committee Members for 
the opportunity to meet with you last Monday and earlier today, 
especially at this busy time of the year with the budget. I'm 
very aware of your hard work over the weekend. As an alumnus of 
the CSU, I thank you for all of your support. 

I have lived and worked in California all of my 
life. I'm a product of California public education, and my 
life's work has been in public education. 

I believe I can bring to this Board the 
perspective and empathy of someone who was a first generation 
college student with limited resources. However, I was able to 
take advantage of this great opportunity called the California 
State University. 

And my hope is that all students in California 
will always have the opportunity that I had. First of all, I am 
very fortunate that I have the ability to devote most of my time 
in my role as a CSU Trustee. 

As I discussed in my statement, I have been very 



active as a Trustee to try not to refuse any request related to 
the Trustees, because I believe the mission of the CSU is open 
accessibility. Trustees should always be accessible and connect 
with the students, as students are the frequently stated CSU 
economic engine that drives the state. 

CSU has done and will continue to do an 
outstanding job of providing access to all qualified students in 
California, regardless of their life situation. However, there 
are some challenges for the CSU ahead, and I believe that most 
of these challenges center around access. 

In my statement, I discussed this and other 
issues in depth, and in the interest of time, I will not restate 
the issues, but I will be happy to answer any questions. 

In conclusion, the Board of Trustees has an 
awesome responsibility to ensure that this great university 
remains accessible and affordable to all California students, 
but I feel that we are up to the task because' of the quality of 
the Board and the leadership of the CSU. 

I would very much like to continue to be a part 
of the solution to these challenges. I hope you will see fit to 
confirm me so that I can have the opportunity to give back to 
the state that has been so very good to me. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: In response to overcrowding in 
the upcoming tidal wave, what's called Tidal Wave II, some of 
the campuses are now adopting policies where they're restricting 
entrance based on the geography of residents of the prospective 



students. 

I was wondering what your thought is on that? 

DR. FARAR: I believe that at our March Board 
meeting in San Jose, the Trustees voted to ensure access to all 
local students based on their — what we call place-bound 
students, students that are unable to, because of their age or 
family obligations, to do anything but be place-bound. 

I believe that we voted to guarantee access to 
these students based on the high school they come from in the 
local area or the community college. 

SENATOR LEWIS: So, you're supportive? 

DR. FARAR: Myself personally? Yes, I voted for 
that, yes, very much. 

SENATOR LEWIS: All right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What was the question? In 
other words, was that dealing with San Francisco State, San 
Francisco students and San Mateo, I guess, only or what? 

DR. FARAR: No. What it means is, because of the 
Tidal Wave II, we are having some campuses that are experiencing 
impaction. That means in the past, they've been able — all our 
campuses have been able to take every CSU-qualif ied student. 
And we know what that entails. If you want, it's the 3.0 
average, and a certain amount of courses. 

However, we got into a situation where we saw 
that because we could not do that any more with impaction, a lot 
of place-bound students were excluded, and that also included a 
lot of minorities and first generation students. So, it was 
determined — 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Place-bound means what? 

DR. FARAR: Place-bound means students that don't 
have the financial or ability to -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They can't go at home. They 
can't -- 

DR. FARAR: Exactly. They cannot attend at all. 
Usually it's because of the average age of our student is older. 

So, what the Board of Trustees did in March was 
vote to guarantee access to all local students, we call them, 
based on the high school they attend, or the community college. 

What that means is, if they are CSU-qualified, 
and they must attend that university, they will be accepted. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That doesn't necessarily mean 
you're place-bound. 

Say you go to Lincoln High School in San 
Francisco. You go to community college. I mean, you could 
anywhere else, but you would still get preference? 

DR. FARAR: I wouldn't say it was preference. I 
think we accept all qualified. You're guaranteed entry if you 
are CSU-qualified. 

And a lot of these students would not 
necessarily, if they're able, choose their local campus, too. 
They would prefer to, perhaps, have the — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know if you know this, 
and maybe Chuck might know it, how many students get turned away 
a year, qualified students; do you know? 

CHANCELLOR REED: Last year, we turned away about 
800 students. 



right. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: For the whole system? 
CHANCELLOR REED: For the whole system; that's 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's not nice, but that's not 



bad. 

CHANCELLOR REED: It's not bad, and it was the 
first time ever. Mostly, I think, they went to a community 
college. It was the first time that that ever happened at a 
CSU, that an eligible student was turned away. 

What we have asked the institutions and the 
presidents to do, is to take fewer out-of-state and 
international students, to make room for our own local students 
who have a hardship in going away. 

Now, that doesn't mean that San Diego State won't 
take students from San Francisco, because they'll continue to do 
that. But it was out-of-state and international students. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I'd like to follow up on that 
question. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Charlie. Is it Charlie or 
Chuck? 

CHANCELLOR REED: Senator, call me anything you 
want, just don't call me late for the budget. 

My name is Charles Reed. That's what my mother 
called me. Most everybody calls me Charlie. The Governor loves 
to call me Chuck. 

Charles, Charlie, Chuck. 

Senator Lewis. 



SENATOR LEWIS: I was just going to ask you, in 
the enrollment right now, how many students do you have in the 
system? 

CHANCELLOR REED: About 370,000 students are in 
our system. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How many are out-of-state, and 
how many are from other countries? 

CHANCELLOR REED: About 3 percent are from 
out-of-state and other countries. 

SENATOR LEWIS: About 10,000. 

CHANCELLOR REED: Frankly, that is very low for 
systems, but it is important that the tradition of California be 
maintained to provide opportunity in the CSU for students to get 
a baccalaureate degree. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Either one of you that want to 
answer this one, and may be both of you. 

What kind of system do you have to streamline and 
make more information available to CSU students about available 
financial aid opportunities? Because a lot of times, students 
are a little bits embarrassed to ask about it, and they think 
they're going to be rejected if they seek information about it. 

But a lot of them are needy, and what can you do? 
What do you plan on doing to make that information available? 

CHANCELLOR REED: Senator Hughes, we, this past 
year, did something for the very first time. 

I had been visiting public schools, elementary, 
middle schools, and high schools, and talking to students, 



faculty and parents. Found out that many Californians just 
didn't understand what it took to go to college/ including 
courses, including grades, and including financial aid. 

So, I came up with an idea to mail to all of the 
middle schools and high schools a great big poster that started 
in the sixth grade. And it says, "If you want to go to the 
University of California, " I did my good friend, Dick Atkinson, 
a favor, but, "If you want to go to the University of California 
or the CSU, here are the courses you take, here are the tests 
that you have to take, here are the grades, and here's where you 
apply for financial aid." 

I have ended up printing 80,000 of those posters 
because we got just waves and waves of requests, because every 
school wanted every classroom to be able to put that on their 
bulletin board. Then we printed more to take home. 

A week ago Sunday, I was in Camarillo, Channel 
Islands, and gave a little talk, and I showed the audience this 
poster. A gentleman called me that following Monday and said, 
"I will pay for every student in Ventura County to get a copy of 
that poster." So, we're going to do that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Jack, what a sport. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you give Mr. O'Connell 
that guy's name? Put him on the hit list. 

CHANCELLOR REED: I'll give him one — 

SENATOR HUGHES: I thought you were going to say 
that his constituent said, "I will pay for every student who 
wants to go to college." 



8 

[Laughter. ] 

CHANCELLOR HUGHES: But Senator Hughes, what you 
say is so true, that many of these students just — they are 
afraid. They don't know. Their parents don't know. 

But we're going to do everything we can to get 
the word out. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I was concerned about the number 
of high schools that do not give AP courses, and AP courses give 
students a leg up. It gives them opportunity to make choices. 

How closely do you, as a Trustee, plan on working 
with local high schools, and you as a Chancellor, plan on 
motivating local high schools to make those kinds of courses 
available to CSU students? 

DR. FARAR: I think all of the effort that the 
CSU is making to ensure access, improve K-12, right now we're 
doing a lot of outreach effort, especially with our remedial 
tied in. We have $9 million that we are giving to — we have 
identified the 200-plus high schools that send us the most 
remedial students. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That was not my question. 

My question is, will you work with the high 
schools to make AP courses available? 

I guess that means working with the local boards 
of education, because, you know, there are law suits now, and 
one in my district, because no AP courses were made available to 
the students that attended that high school. 

And what can the CSU system do to encourage 
boards of education to make these kinds of courses available to 



their students? 

CHANCELLOR REED: Senator Hughes, we are 
cooperating with the University of California, who is receiving 
outreach money and also money to develop on-line, over the 
Internet, web-based, web-delivered, AP courses to the high 
schools. And we will cooperate with them in delivering that to 
the high schools. 

So, our faculty and the UC faculty are working 
together to do that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's fine. 

DR. FARAR: That was part of the outreach effort, 
sending that in and then making students aware of the course 
work that they need to take, AP especially. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: The ball's in your court. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight, you're 
recognized. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you. 

Chancellor — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's not his confirmation. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: We've been talking to him, and 
he's the one that's been answering, and he's the one that 
prompted my question. 

You're putting out posters to the high schools, 
telling them what they have to do to go to college, where they 
get money, all of these things, and we're just doing that now? 

What have the public schools been doing for the 



10 

last 50 years in terms of preparing kids to go to school? 
Because I thought that there was a college preparatory 
curriculum, and the students knew that if they wanted to go to 
college, these are the kinds of things you had to take. 

What have we been doing? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He just came from Florida two 
years ago. 

CHANCELLOR REED: Senator Knight, let me say that 
the public schools, in many ways, have been overwhelmed, 
especially the guidance counselors, in handling lots of 
different assignments and problems in the schools, and haven't 
had enough time to provide the kind of information that Senator 
Hughes wants these children, students, to get. 

I think we've made a major effort this past year. 
We're going to continue to do that. 

The curriculum is there. We just have to make 
sure that parents and students understand that it's important to 
take algebra, laboratory science, a foreign language, and learn 
how to write. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And they don't know that? 

CHANCELLOR REED: No, I'm sorry, but many of them 
don ' t . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted 
to state and really commend Ms. Farar, as well as Chancellor in 
the CSU system. They are ahead of the curve when it comes to 
trying to accommodate that Tidal Wave II group that Senator 
Lewis referenced. 






11 

In addition, I've had the opportunity to work 
with Ms. Farar in the development of the 23rd CSU campus when 
she worked for then-Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis. The summer 
school utilization of the campuses, CSU system is much farther 
ahead than the other branches of higher education, in my 
opinion. They're distance-learning. We've had an opportunity 
to participate with them. 

And it's that kind of, I think, visionary 
approach towards trying to accommodate the Baby Boom Echo, as 
some people are referenced, with over 700, 000 more students 
projected for three institutions of higher learning over the 
next ten years. It's going to be able to enable us to 
accommodate that growth. 

So, I just wanted to publicly thank Ms. Farar for 
her help and support in that preparation during her work with 
the Board for the last several years. 

DR. FARAR: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm looking at the Board of 
Trustees. I think you're pretty lucky to have a pretty good 
Board to work with, and you've got a good Board. 

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I 
really do think that the system's lucky to have you at the head, 
because rarely — oh, he's going to blush — but I mean, it's 
nice to have somebody who's an academic but also understands 
politics, not one of those pointy-head types. 

And I really do, I think we're quite lucky. 

I see a family person. Do you have any others? 

DR. FARAR: Besides them, well, my husband, Tim 



12 

Farar, has accompanied me here today. He's always very 
supportive. And a very good friend and colleague, Sharon Edward 
is here with the — she's the coordinator of the ICC. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Witnesses in support. 

MR. ARTEAGA: Thank you, Senator Burton, Members 
of the Committee. 

On behalf of the California State Student 
Association, and the 370,000 students we represent, it is my 
pleasure to support the confirmation of Dr. Farar. 

Since her appointment by Governor Davis to the 
Board of Trustees, Dr. Farar has been prepared and knowledgeable 
on all matters before the Board. 

But most notably, Dr. Farar has been responsive 
and respectful to the students and the student leadership of the 
system. She's been very willing to work with us, to meet with 
us, and talk to us about the issues that are facing the system 
and some of the concerns that we have. And along with Dr. Reed 
and the other Trustees, she's been very helpful in making sure 
that those concerns come to a resolution. 

So, again, it's my pleasure to support her 
confirmation, and I urge your support. 

Thank you. 

DR. FARAR: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 

MS. MEISENHELDER: Thank you. My name is Susan 
Meisenhelder, and I'm President of the California Faculty 
Association. 



13 

I'm happy to be here today to speak in favor of 
the nomination. In the past, the relationship between the 
faculty and the Trustees has not always been the best, and we 
certainly look forward to the new Trustees, and Dr. Farar in 
particular, to help create a better working relationship. 

We have a number of issues facing faculty and the 
CSU, more broadly, that are very important right now. And we 
believe that Dr. Farar brings the background and the 
experience to facilitate the kind of cooperation between 
faculty, administration, and Trustees that will help the system 
be the best it can be. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other witnesses in support? 
Any witnesses in opposition? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move the nomination. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator O'Connell. 
He's trying to get a campus. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 



14 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

DR. FARAR: Thank you very much. 

CHANCELLOR REED: I thank you a lot. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Unemployment Insurance 
Appeals Board, Elihu Harris, member, a man who needs no 
introduction. 

MR. HARRIS: I was hoping that wasn't the case. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Don. 

SENATOR PERATA: Thank you, Mr. President, 
Members, I'm Don Perata. My mother called my Dave. My family 
calls me Godfather. 

This man does not need any introduction, but it's 
a distinct honor for me to do so, nonetheless. Elihu, as many 
of you know, and probably all of you served with him when he had 
a distinguished career in the State Assembly, went on to be a 
two-term Mayor of the City of Oakland. And has dedicated all of 
his adult life, at least all of it that I've been associated 
with him, to public service. 

And I think it's rightful and fitting that he be 
now in this capacity to once again provide his great acumen and 
dedication to our government in this capacity. 

I'm just proud to be here to introduce him and 
give him God speed. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Elihu. 

MR. HARRIS: Senator Perata, thank you very much. 



15 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm 
here to present myself for your consideration of my appointment 
to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board by Governor Davis. 

Certainly, I'm excited about the opportunity to 
serve. When the meeting started, I was glad that Senator 
Burton, I saw him upstairs, and I was hoping he wouldn't get 
here before I was called. He told me that I might not get 
confirmed if he got down here. 

Nevertheless, obviously, this is a very important 
Board from the standpoint of the many workers and employers 
who 're impacted by its decisions and deliberations. 

And in the short time that I've served, I 
certainly have been aware of that importance, and certainly of 
the good work and the good staff that exists to assist the Board 
in those deliberations. 

So, I would very much appreciate any 
consideration you would give, and certainly answer any questions 
that you might have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Pass for right now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You've served there a little 



time now. 



Chair now? 



Is Louis Barnett now the Chair or is he the Vice 



MR. HARRIS: Mr. Barnett is the immediate past 
Chair. Ms. Thornton, who will follow me, is the new Chair of 
the Board. 



16 

SENATOR HUGHES: Are there any plans for any 
bilingual services to the clients? 

MR. HARRIS: There is bilingual service to the 
clients, and there are translators available for the record to 
be translated from the native language of the person, whether 
they be employer or employee, to the Board. 

SENATOR HUGHES: This is fairly new; isn't it? 
They didn't, quite sometime ago, they didn't have it? 

MR. HARRIS: I can't testify to the history, but 
since I've been a member, and to my knowledge, that has been the 
case . 

SENATOR HUGHES: In the '99 report, they didn't 
have it. 

MR. HARRIS: Didn't have bilingual services? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Right. They didn't have a 
procedure set up for dealing with bilingual clients. 

MR. HARRIS: Well, they certainly have it now. 
And they certainly have translation and translators available. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I understand that our state 
benefits rank below 43 other states. 

Do you support efforts to raise the UI benefits? 

MR. HARRIS: I think, Senator, given the cost of 
living in California, that certainly is an appropriate 
prerogative for the Legislature to review. 

As you know, each state sets its own unemployment 
benefits. And I think certainly, given the economy in 
California, and certainly the cost of living in many of the 
areas that I know of, it certainly is a very valid issue that 



17 

certainly, I think, ought to be given serious consideration. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Can you get any other benefits 
at the same time you're getting unemployment insurance? 

MR. HARRIS: Certainly, for certain categories of 
unemployed people, training benefits are available. For 
example, if you are a victim -- I won't say a victim, but 
certainly a casualty of NAFTA or the trade resolutions, you may, 
in fact, be given training at the same time you're getting 
unemployment . 

There are other retraining opportunities as well. 
As well as, I think, you can get a waiver for training if you 
want to go into a new field, and not for a college education, 
but for specific training. There is the waiver for training 
money as well as — I think you have to pay that on your own, 
but you can, in fact, get unemployment while you do training. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you believe individuals who 
win their appeal before the Appeals Board should be entitled to 
payment of interest on their delayed benefit payments? 

MR. HARRIS: I think it certainly would depend on 
the circumstances. It depends on what the delay was due to. If 
it some type of malfeasance on the part of the employer, or 
negligence on the part of the state, then I think certainly that 
would be a valid consideration. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Move the nomination. 

I hesitated to ask for witnesses in opposition. 

MR. HARRIS: I'm glad you did. The longer I 
talk, the more this is in jeopardy, so I appreciate it. 



18 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So you have any family here to 
introduce? 

MR. HARRIS: No, I have family, but they aren't 
here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anybody in opposition? 

I'll move the nomination. 

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Senator. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. HARRIS: Thank you very much. 

May I say one other thing. You know, I served as 
Mayor for eight years. Some people thought I should have stayed 
here and died a natural death with term limits. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Cynthia D. Thornton, Member, 
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. 

MS. THORNTON: Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Rules 



19 

Committee, I'm delighted to be here, serving on the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeals Board is a unique opportunity. 

The CUIAB has issued over 200,000 dispositions 
last year alone, and of those, well over 100,000, about 110,000 
were in-person hearings. 

Most people don't get to see how government works 
and how the court works. So, for most people, this is only 
contact they're going to have with government. 

Therefore, these hearings form the basis of a 
large segment of our population's view of the fairness of 
government and the way our judicial system operates. It's 
therefore very important that our agency does a good job at what 
it does. 

I am pleased to report that even though I've only 
been at this agency for five months, I've attended hearings in 
just about every field office. And from what I've observed, the 
ALJs, the administrative law judges at our agency, do an 
excellent job of providing full and fair hearings, and providing 
claimants and employers with the feeling that they've been 
treated fairly. I am proud to be associated with this group of 
people, and with the fine work they've done. 

I do have a letter of support from the 
Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law 
Judges that I'm informed didn't reach the Senate Committee, if 
any of you care to see it. 

And I'd like to answer any questions you may 
have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 



20 

SENATOR HUGHES: How are your ALJs selected for 
the Unemployment Appeals Board? 

MS. THORNTON: The same as most states — I'm 
sorry, the same as most state agencies. They have to take a 
civil service test, and then they're selected from the first 
group. 

Our agency — 

SENATOR HUGHES: And who appoints them? 

MS. THORNTON: It's selected by a hiring 
committee with the approval of the Board. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Hiring committee of your Board, 
or a hiring committee of whom? 

MS. THORNTON: The chief ALJ in the field and the 
ALJ of the appellate operation, chief ALJ of appellate 
operations. Chief Counsel has historically been on that 
committee but is not currently on that committee. And then 
personnel, what is typically on the committee. 

There's also some other ALJs that are included in 
the committee. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family to 
introduce? 

MS. THORNTON: No, my children are getting a 
perfect attendance award today in San Diego, so they couldn't be 
here . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is the Governor giving the 



21 

award out? 

MS. THORNTON: No, it's from a person just as 
important/ the principal. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 
Witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none. Senator Hughes moves approval. 
Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MS. THORNTON: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 4:15 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



22 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

V IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of /r^w-^-^ , 2000. 





<^ 



/ £V£LYN ; 'jV M1ZAV) 
""' orthand ^Reporter 









402-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 402-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATEJIULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP - 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




L^iiUtv*- 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, JUNE 19,2000 
3:35 P.M. 



404-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2000 
3 :35 P.M. 



Reported by 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

LES S. BOWKER, Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 

BRUCE K. DANIELS, Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 

JOHN H. HAYASHI, Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 

GARY C. SHALLCROSS, Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 

KARL LONGLEY, Sc.D., Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Valley Region 



Ill 



DANIEL F. CROWLEY, Member, 
California Regional Water Quality Control Board 
North Coast Region 

LESLIE DAHLHOFF, Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 

KRISTEN D. ADDICKS, Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 

DANNY W. WAN, Member, 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

LES S. BOWKER, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 1 

BRUCE K. DANIELS, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 1 

GARY C. SHALLCROSS, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 3 

JOHN H. HAYASHI, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 4 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Science Degrees 5 

Motion to Confirm 5 

Committee Action 6 

BEA COOLEY, Ph.D., Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Lahontan Region 6 

DANIEL F. CROWLEY, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 6 

LESLIE DAHLOFF, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 6 

KRISTEN D. ADDICKS, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 6 



DANNY w. WAN, Member 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 6 

Motion to Confirm 6 

Committee Action 7 

Termination of Proceedings 7 

Certificate of Reporter 8 

Introductory Remarks of LESLIE DAHLHOFF 9 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Dr. Les Bowker, Bruce K. 
Daniels, John Hayashi, Gary Shallcross, that's the Central Coast 
Region, please come up. 

I ask you all to appear in person so we could 
clearly emphasize the importance of enforcing our clean water 
laws . 

For many years, Regional Water Boards did not 
enforce laws very aggressively. We have no reason to think any 
of you are objectionable, but we want you to fully understand, 
we care about the clean water, and we want you to enforce the 
laws . 

All of the appointees here have answered the 
questions that we sent out. Why don't you just very briefly 
make a brief statement. If there are questions, we'll ask them, 
then we'll move to a vote. 

DR. BOWKER: My name is Les Bowker. I've been 
25-26 years now as a faculty member at Cal . Poly State 
University, San Luis Obispo. 

I have experience, technical experience in water 
quality issues, particularly surface waters. I was a chairman 
of a committee that wrote the management plan for the Morro Bay 
State Estuary under AB 640. 

I guess my expertise, I bring to the board a 
scientific background and knowledge of technical data. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

MR. DANIELS: Honorable Chair and Members, my 



name is Bruce Daniels. 

I would very much like to serve on the Central 
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

Since water and its quality are so important here 
in California, this is certainly a position where someone like 
me can make a real contribution to improving the quality of 
Californians ' lives. 

This is also a position that can make full use of 
my skills and experience. I studied science at MIT. I worked 
for over 20 years at such Silicon Valley enterprises as Hewlett 
Packard, Apple, Oracle, and now Sun Micro Systems. For five 
years I've been researching water issues in Santa Cruz County. 
All this helped me to understand and contribute to the complex 
hydrology, geology, biology, chemistry, and information 
processing aspects of water production. 

I was the founder and president of a high tech 
start-up company, and this allows me to appreciate the financial 
issues of water users and to serve as the budget advisor for our 
board. 

I founded and serve as the chair of the Water 
Resources Committee of our local Sierra Club. This makes me 
treasure the value and fragility of our environment. 

Since my appointment in December, I've attended 
three regular board meetings, and feel I've already been able to 
make significant contributions. 

I respectfully ask you to confirm my appointment 
and let me continue my job of protecting the quality of 
California's water. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

MR. SHALLCROSS: Gary Shallcross. 

Senator Burton, Committee Members, as a young 
boy, I spent every summer with my grandfather, fishing and 
hiking in the Sierras. He instilled in me a profound respect 
for the environment and our responsibility as stewards to 
safeguard it. These early experiences have instructed and 
underlie my current commitment to the environment and water 
issues . 

In my professional life, I've learned how to turn 
this respect for the environment into action. I've worked on a 
variety of environmental and water issues, first as an aid to a 
Santa Cruz County Supervisor, and more recently as an Assembly 
Member's District Director. I've worked on a wide range of 
water issues, including septic tanks, timber harvests, and water 
district matters. 

Currently, I sit as an ex-officio member for the 
Assembly Member on Fort Ord Re-use Authority, Big Sur 
Multi-Agency Task Force, and the Carmel Valley Watershed Task 
Force, all dealing with complex water issues. I'm currently 
working on a project that would result in the removal of a large 
dam on the Carmel Valley River for the benefit of the steelhead 
population. I think the anadromous fisheries are a good 
indication of how well we're doing on water issues. 

To this end — to these ends, the consistent 
enforcement of the Clean Water Act is vital. In the next 
several decades, California's going to experience an increase in 
population and development pressures. And we need to have our 



Clean Water Act programs in effect to deal with that, in fact, 
to get ahead of the curve. 

To that end, I'd like to work with our regional 
staff to better ensure that interaction between the regional 
boards and other enforcement agencies are effective to ensure 
enforcement when strong enforcement measures are indicated. 

The Legislature has committed increased funding 
for clean water enforcement. With this commitment and the 
energy of the new members on the various regional boards, we 
have a good chance to institute real protection enhancements of 
our waters. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sir. 

MR. HAYASHI: Senator Burton and Committee 
Members, my name is John Hayashi . I'm a third generation 
Japanese-American, born in San Luis Obispo and raised on our 
family farm in Arroyo Grande. 

Our farm is also operating in its third 
generation, which started in the 1920s. Today we farm around a 
thousand acres, all of which are irrigated, that produce 2,500 
acres of fresh vegetables each year. 

Water quality is a priority issue for all of 
California. Agriculture is no exception, as California 
agriculture relies heavily on good water in its part to grow and 
maintain the quality crops that consumers around the world have 
come to depend on. The California farmers of today are on the 
cutting edge, leading the nation in crop production. 

I have been appointed to the California Regional 
Water Quality Control Board, Region Three, because of my 



knowledge and experience associated with irrigated agriculture. 
As a member of the board, I will work with the intent and the 
understanding that we must all work together to maintain and 
ensure the water quality of Region Three of this Golden State 
forever. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Any questions. Members of the Committee? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: One question. 

The first two gentlemen indicate you've got 
Master of Science Degrees. What were your degrees in, just as a 
matter of curiosity? 

DR. BOWKER: I have a Ph.D. in zoology, with 
minors in botony and statistics. Professionally, I'm a 
limnologist-ecologist . 

MR. DANIELS: My degrees are a Bachelor's and 
Master's of electrical engineering and computer science. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you. That's fine. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do any of you have family you'd 
like to introduce. 

MR. DANIELS: My wife Barbara is here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
Witnesses in support? 

Hearing none, Senator Lewis moves all four 
nominees. Any reason to separate? 

Call the roll on Items A to D. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 



SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. Congratulations. 

Next witnesses, Bea Cooley, who can't be here, 
but we'll consider her here. She had a death in the family. 
Daniel Crowley, Leslie Dahlhoff, Kristen Addicks, and Danny 
Wan. 

As you come — in fact, I don't think you have to 
come up right now. We've all read your comments. 

Is there anyone who's in opposition to any of 
these appointees? Any questions? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. 

Anybody want to introduce their family? 

MR. CROWLEY: Barbara, my wife. Hi. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Hi. 

Do you want to give them copies of your speech? 

Anyway, because of the fact that we're tied up 
over budget negotiations, and the fact that all of you are 
eminently qualified, we're very satisfied with your responses. 

Senator Hughes moves. We'll call the roll from E 
to J, including Bea Cooley. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 
SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell 
SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
SENATOR BURTON: Congratulations. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 3:45 P.M.] 
--00O00 — 



0£ 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



day of 1 ^4^f^)^L^ , 2000. 



/jwZA^-4-. fitted 

/EVELYN J./ftlZ'AK) 
~^iorthand Reporter 



Introductory remarks before the Senate Rules Committee 

Senate Confirmation Hearing for Regional Water Quality Board members, June 19, 2000 



Honorable Senators, 

My name is Leslie DahlhofF, I was appointed to the municipal seat on the Region 1 board 
in January of this year. I am the mayor of Point Arena, a small coastal city in Mendocino 
County. 

Our city has limited staff, so I've had plenty of "hands-on" experience dealing with real 
municipal water quality issues. As the utilities commissioner, I work with our wastewater 
treatment plant operator to optimize the operations of our plant now, and to insure that it will 
function and meet build-out demands in the future. When money became available for road 
repair, I took a major role in designing and coordinating a City project to repair an important 
stream-side road and a collapsing streambank. The near-by Garcia River is essential to our city as 
the source of our municipal water supply and as a biological resource. Our community has 
experienced the economic and spiritual loss resulting from the decline of our once great salmon 
fishery. To try to recover our cold water fishery and to protect water quality, I have spent many 
years on the Garcia Watershed Advisory Group and represented the City in the development of 
the TMDL for this watershed. 

I bring to our board not only a municipal perspective but also years of experience in 
resource planning and environmental review. I've worked successfully on committees, 
commissions, councils, consensus groups and boards. I'm conscientious, a good listener and a 
reasonable person. I appreciate the wealth of information and perspective that comes from the 
public, the staff and the other board members. My goal is to use this information to fairly and 
effectively protect and restore water quality. 



Thank-you for your consideration. 



Respectfully, 




Leslie Dahlhoff 



404-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 404-R when ordering. 



^.HEARING 

^SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP - 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



6 ^^t*Uf «/•<«- 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 
3:40 P.M. 



405-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 
3 :40 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 

APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

STEVEN R. JONES, Member 

California Integrated Waste Management Board 

JOSH PANE 

California Refuse Removal Council 

DENIS E DELMATIER 

Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. 

CHRIS VOIGHT 

California Association of Professional Scientists 

MARK MURRAY 

Californians Against Waste 

JOSE E. MEDINA, Member 

California Integrated Waste Management Board 



Ill 



CRAIG COPELAN, Corporate President 
Professional Engineers in California Government 

JULIAN CAMACHO 

Hispanic Contractors Association 

FRANK RAMIREZ 
American GI Forum 

STEVE YBARRA, Chair 
Chicano-Latino Caucus 
California Democratic Party 

MICHAEL PAPARIAN, Member 

California Integrated Waste Management Board 

KAREN FISH, Acting Chief Deputy Director 
Integrated Waste Management Board 



IV 
INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 



STEVEN R. JONES, Member 

Integrated Waste Management Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Work at Golden Gate Disposal 1 

Witnesses in Support: 

JOSH PANE 

California Refuse Removal Council 2 

DENISE DELMATIER 

Norcal Waste Systems 2 

MARK MURRAY 

Californians Against Waste 2 

CHRIS VOIGHT 

California Association of Professional Scientists 3 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Solution to Used Tire Problem 3 

Motion to Confirm 4 

Committee Action 4 

JOSE E. MEDINA, Member 

Integrated Waste Management Board 5 

Background and Experience 5 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Use of Old Tires to Repair Freeways 6 



Witnesses in Support: 

JOSH PANE 

California Refuse Removal Council 7 

DENISE DELMATIER 

Norcal Waste Systems 7 

CRAIG COPELAN, President 

Professional Engineers in California Government 7 

JULIAN CAMACHO 

Hispanic Contractors Association 8 

CHRIS VOIGHT 

California Association of Professional Scientists 8 

FRANK RAMIREZ 

American GI Forum 8 

STEVE YBARRA, Chairman 

Chicano-Latino Caucus 

California Democratic Party 8 

Motion to Confirm 9 

Committee Action 9 

MICHAEL PAPARIAN, Member 

Integrated Waste Management Board 9 

Background and Experience 9 

Witnesses in Support: 

JOSH PANE 

California Refuse Removal Council 11 

DENISE DELMATIER 

Norcal Waste Systems 11 

MARK MURRAY 

Californians Against Waste 11 

CHRIS VOIGHT 

California Association of Professional Scientists .... 12 



VI 



Motion to Confirm 12 

Committee Action 13 

Questions to All Nominees by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

$7 Million in Park Bonds Allocated to 

Integrated Waste Management Board in 

Budget 13 

Response by KARIN FISH, 

Acting Deputy Director 

Integrated Waste Management Board 13 

Intended Use of Money 14 

Competitive Grants 15 

Termination of Proceedings 16 

Certificate of Reporter 17 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Steven Jones, Member, 
Integrated Waste Board. 

Yes, sir. 

MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of 
the Committee. My name is Steve Jones. 

I'm honored to be here today as one of the 
Governor's appointees to the Integrated Waste Management Board. 

I was actually in this same chamber four days 
short of three years ago, when I first got put on this Board and 
was in front of Senate Rules on June 30th, 1997. 

I came to this Board originally with 20 years of 
experience in the solid waste industry, private industry. 
Started as a mechanic's helper in San Francisco at Golden Gate 
Disposal, and then I was the Chief Executive Officer for Cal- 
Sierra Disposal in Sonora, California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When did you work for Golden 
Gate? 

MR. JONES: From 1974 through 1991. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: John Mosconi? 

MR. JONES: John Mosconi was one of my mentors 
and one of the people that kind of took me under their wing. 
Actually, my wife's cousin. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Leo Conti? 

MR. JONES: Leo Conti, Pete Gardella. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Pete finally retired; right? 

MR. JONES: Yes. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is Leo still alive? 

MR. JONES: Leo's still alive, but he's also 
retired. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Has anybody got any questions 
of this man? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have anybody you want to 
introduce? Here come a couple witnesses in support. 

MR. PANE: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, Josh Pane on behalf of the California Refuse Removal 
Council. We're in strong support of Mr. Jones. 

MS. DELMATIER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, Denise Delmatier with Norcal Waste Systems, in strong 
support of Mr. Jones. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I assume you're an industry 
representative on the Board? 

MR. JONES: I am, Senator, and I tried — here's 
the environmental. 

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, Mark Murray with 
Calif ornians Against Waste, and we're pleased to support 
Mr. Jones' appointment. He's been a great advocate on 
developing markets for recycling. 

And in the absence of an environmental appointee 
for over a year on the Board, he filled in pretty nicely for us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You still don't have one on the 
Board? 

MR. MURRAY: We just got one, and we'll be up 
there to support him as well. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Make sure you bring Weinstein 
with you. 

MR. VOIGHT: Mr. Chairman, Members, Chris Voight 
on behalf of the California Association of Professional 
Scientists. We have nearly 200 scientists working at the Board, 
all in strong support of his confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

Questions, Members of the Committee. 

Nobody else cares about Leo Conti. Do you see 
him at all? 

MR. JONES: I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Nobody sees him. 

MR. JONES: Nobody sees him. 

SENATOR HUGHES: One little question. 

What about the used tire stuff? What are you 
proposing, or what is your group going to do about all these 
used tires that pile up and cause all of these fires? 

Do you have any solution to that? 

MR. JONES: We are working diligently with 
Senator Escutia's office. The administration has sent us some 
guidelines. We hope to get the bill, 876, SB 876, in front of 
you very shortly. 

This will be a bill that will fund the tire 
activities at a level it needs to be. It's been an underfunded 
program since its inception. This will give us a chance to take 
care of it. 

We cannot — I don't know if you remember, 



4 

Senator, when I was here three years ago. Senator Lockyer asked 
me about the Wesley pile, and I said it was my biggest fear. 

And while the Board put our dollars into cleaning 
up that pile, we didn't get the whole pile taken care of, 
obviously, and it caught on fire. So, our worst fears were 
realized, and we need to — we need this legislation that's 
upcoming to be able to put a program in place that not only 
monitors the flow of tires, but helps us with market development 
and with eradicating all those tire problems. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Okay, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Burton. Call 
the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Hold the roll open. 

Congratulations . 

MR. JONES: Thank you, Senator. 

[Thereafter, SENATORS LEWIS 
and O'CONNELL added their 
Aye votes, making the final 
vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you were at Sunset, you 
would have gone through even faster. 



[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Jose Medina. 

MR. MEDINA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and 
Members of the Rules Committee. 

I was appointed to the California Integrated 
Waste Management Board by Governor Gray Davis on April the 14th 
of 2000. 

I'm pleased to have opportunity to appear before 
you today for confirmation, and please be assured that I take my 
appointment to the California Waste Board very seriously and 
will discharge my duties and obligations with due diligence. 

My previous experience as a member of the San 
Francisco Board of Supervisors and as Director of Caltrans will 
serve me in good stead. 

As a member of the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, I held hearings, presented resolutions, and 
participated in public events that addressed issues relating to 
the city's waste collection, transportation, and disposal of 
commercial and residential waste, and solid waste recycling 
efforts. 

As a former representative of local government, I 
can see a greater role at the local level for the Board. 

During my tenure at Caltrans, I strongly 
encouraged the use of rubberized asphalt and reuse of old 
asphalt mixed with virgin asphalt on state roads and highways. 
In doing so, I worked very closely with the rubberized asphalt 
industry and with local government. 

I also encouraged, and continue to encourage, 



increased use of compost and mulches, giving preference to 
recycled materials to help the state achieve its landfill 
diversion goals. 

I look forward to promoting a close working 
relationship between Caltrans and the Board in ways to promote 
the waste diversion tenets of reduce, reuse, recycle, and buy 
recycled. 

As noted in my statement of goals, I will assist 
local jurisdictions in their efforts to meet the 50 percent 
diversion goal, work with plastic manufacturers in complying 
with state law regarding the rate of plastic container recycling 
and the use of recycled content materials. 

I will also participate and am currently 
participating in an effort to address cross border environmental 
issues relating to solid waste. 

In closing, please be assured that the public 
interest will be well served by my confirmation to the 
Integrated Waste Board, and I'll be greatly honored to receive 
your support today. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Medina, how did you feel or 
do you feel about the use of those old tires to repair our 
freeway system that has a lot of holes now? Will you be 
recommending more use for these tires for this purpose? Or does 
it make good sense for us to use the old tires for that purpose? 

MR. MEDINA: It does make good sense. And while 
I was at Caltrans, again, I strongly supported and encouraged 
the use. 



SENATOR HUGHES: That's what you did then. What 
are you going to do now, as you've got all the tires within the 
palm of your hand? 

MR. MEDINA: I am continuing to do so. I've met 
with the new Director of Caltrans, with Randy Iwosocki, whom I 
appointed as head of Traffic Operations and. Maintenance, so that 
we can continue to use, together, the use of tires, used tires 
on our freeways. 

Also, there are a number of civil engineering 
applications that can be used as retaining walls and levees, and 
light field and road construction. So, there's a number of 
uses. 

I will continue that working relationship. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anybody to introduce, Jose, 



family? 



here today. 



MR. MEDINA: My wife, Raquel Medina, is with me 

MS. MEDINA: Hi. 

MR. MEDINA: I do have couple supporters here 



today. 



MR. PANE: Mr. Chairman and Members, again, Josh 
Pane on behalf of the California Refuse Removal Council, in 
support of Mr. Medina. 

MS. DELMATIER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, Denise Delmatier with Norcal Waste Systems, in 
support of the confirmation of Mr. Medina for the Waste Board. 

MR. COPELAN: Mr. Chairman, Craig Copelan, 



8 

President of Professional Engineers in California Government/ 
representing more than 10,000 engineers employed in civil 
service. We're in strong support of Jose Medina. 

Thank you. 

MR. CAMACHO: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee, my name is Julian Camacho. 

On behalf of the Hispanic Contractors Association 
we wish to convey our strongest support for what we believe will 
be a great asset to the Integrated Waste Management Board of the 
State of California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next, please. 

MR. VOIGHT: Mr. Chairman, Members, Chris Voight 
on behalf of the California Association of Professional 
Scientists, who register strong support for Mr. Medina on behalf 
of the scientists that work at the Board. 

Thank you. 

MR. RAMIREZ: Mr. Chair, Members, my name is 
Frank Ramirez. I'm a member of the American GI Forum, 
representing the National Commander in strong support of 
Mr. Medina. 

MR. YBARRA: Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is 
Steve Ybarra. I am the Chairman of the Chicano-Latino Caucus of 
the California Democratic Party. 

We support our member, and it is important for us 
to be on this Board because our community is the one that bears 
the brunt of all the trash in California. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 



SENATOR HUGHES: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. Call 



the roll. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 
Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 
Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Three to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you and congratulations, 
Jose. 

Have all of the members not to leave because 
I've got a question to ask them after the next confirmation. 

Michael Paparian. 

MR. PAPARIAN: Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm 
Michael Paparian. 

I'm pleased to come before you as an appointee of 
Governor Davis to the California Integrated Waste Management 
Board. 

I was appointed to the environmental seat on the 
Waste Board. By law, that seat must go to an individual from a 
nonprofit environmental organization whose purposes promote 
recycling, water quality, and air quality. I believe my 22 
years of service to the Sierra Club qualify me and provide the 
background necessary to meet this mandate. 



10 

Additionally, I have degrees in biology, 
psychology, and environmental planning, all of which will come 
in handy as I deal with issues ranging from citing landfills, 
promoting recycling and source reduction, to dealing with the 
impacts of waste tire piles. 

A lot has happened since the enactment of the 
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The Act set ambitious 
goals for reducing waste, promoting recycling and composting, 
and addressing the environmental problems associated with 
landfills. Much progress has been made in the last decade, but 
there's a lot left to accomplish. 

Californians have greatly reduced the amount of 
waste they throw away. Local governments are mostly on track to 
achieve a 50 percent reduction in waste, and the perception that 
there was a crisis in landfill capacity has largely 
disappeared. 

The Board has a wide range of programs, from 
assisting businesses, to finding and remediating waste tire 
problems, to promoting health and safety at dump sites, to 
evaluating the effectiveness of local governments' solid waste 
programs, and much more. 

I look forward to working on these issues, and 
I'm honored by the opportunity to serve the people of 
California. I ask for your support of my confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No questions. 



11 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. Senator 
O'Connell. 

Do you have any family here? 

MR. PAPARIAN: No, my family's not with me. I 
think there might be a few people who want to testify. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

MR. PANE: Once again, Members, Josh Pane on 
behalf of the California Refuse Removal Council in support of 
Mr. Paparian. 

MS. DELMATIER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, Denise Delmatier with Norcal Waste Systems, in strong 
support of the confirmation of this long overdue appointment. 
This has been a vacancy for several years now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: For how long? 

MR. PAPARIAN: It's been vacant for nearly two 
years before my appointment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Almost two years; I'll be 
darned. 

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman and Members, Mark 
Murray with Californians Against Waste. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Couldn't find anybody to take a 
job at that low salary, I guess. 

MR. MURRAY: Frankly, when the legislation in 
1989 designated an environmental spot, along with an industry 
spot on this Board, it was certainly our intent, and we think 
the Legislature's intent, to appoint someone that actually came 
from the environmental community, that had been active on these 
issues. 



12 

And frankly, Mike is the first person that 
actually fills that roll in over a decade. So, we think this is 
a very, very long overdue appointment. 

Certainly, one of the other members of the Board, 
appointed by Governor Deukmejian and then Governor Wilson, fit 
that bill, Paul Relis, but he wasn't involved in the actual — 
with our kind of environmental networking in Sacramento, and 
Mike fits that bill. 

MR. VOIGHT: Again Mr. Chairman and Members, 
Chris Voight on behalf of CAPS, Professional Scientists. 

Like the others considered today, strong support 
for Mr. Paparian. 

I have had the pleasure of working with Mike on a 
number issues over the years, and can't think of better 
appointee in that particular spot. So, urge confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Witnesses in opposition. Hearing none, moved by 
Senator O'Connell. 

Secretary call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 



13 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. PAPARIAN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'd like the other two 
commissioners to come up. There's a question I want to ask. 

During the deliberations on the budget, it was 
determined, or I found out, that for some bizarre reason there 
were $7 million worth of park bonds allocated to the Integrated 
Waste Management Board to dole out. 

Anybody aware of that? 

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that the 
bill had us administer that, but what that's for is to recycle 
-- to help recycle — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I think you guys actually 
put it out, as I understood it. The wheels are clicking there. 

MR. JONES: I know we're supposed to administer 
the recycled — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Somebody's got an answer there. 
You can tell us. It's all right. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. FISH: This is a bond that was passed. It 
had $7 million, and we will administer that $7 million to give 
out grants. 

Is that what you're asking? They're for — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know what they're for. I'm 
wondering how the hell it got into a bill, one. Nobody in the 



14 

world knew that was there except whoever put it in. 

MS. FISH: It was put in -- you mean in the bond 
that was voted? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes. 

MS. FISH: How did it get there? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes, if you know. 

MS. FISH: I'm sorry, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Nobody knows. Really bizarre. 
I mean, $7 million. Makes a lot of sense; right? I mean, you 
guys are in the park business. 

So basically explain, it's like they've got to 
use recycled benches? It makes no sense to me. 

Does anybody know? How do we get on the list? I 
guess that's the next question. 

MR. PAPARIAN: Actually, a lot of the market for 
recycled goods is in parks and playgrounds. A lot of the way we 
use used tires right now are those little rubberized mats at 
playgrounds. 

There's a lot of recycled content material going 
into the structures of playgrounds, as well as the tracks that 
people run around at parks and so forth. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You give money to an existing 
park and playground, or you can create a new park and 
playground? Do you know? 

MS. FISH: This is specifically for resurfacing 
their playgrounds. It's for an existing playground. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, it's 7 million 
for upkeep or for remodeling, for the want of a better word? 



15 

MS. FISH: Well, remodeling, not necessarily 
upkeep. It's $25,000 grants that have a matching component 
where, if they're going to refit the playground to make it safer 
using recycled playground surface — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it's money to improve an 
existing — 

MS. FISH: Existing playgrounds, school 
playgrounds, park, that type of thing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And it's got to be matching 
funds? 

MS. FISH: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's going to happen when, 
after it's all said and done, out of that 7 million there's 
6,600,000 left? It just sits there? 

MS. FISH: This is a competitive grant. And 
right now, we're anticipating being over-subscribed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Really? 

MS. FISH: Yes. They will be rated competitively 
by grant criteria that the Board has approved based on recycled 
content. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, all I am is the 
Pro Tern of the Senate, and I found out about it as we were going 
through the budget stuff. 

You send out RFP? Everybody who's got a park 
knows about it? How did the word get out? Nobody in the 
Legislature knew a damn thing about it. 

MS. FISH: Well, what we did is, we received $2 
million from the Department of Education to do a similar grant 



16 

program. It was anticipated that this money, if it was approved 
by the voters, because it was actually a bond, this money would 
go to augment the program that was already in place. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you've got an existing 
program like this that goes to school yards? 

MS. FISH: Yes. It goes to playgrounds. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, Department of Ed., I guess, 
goes to school yards and not playgrounds. There's a difference. 

MS. FISH: Right, and my understanding, this bond 
expanded it to also include playgrounds as well as park 
entities . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, thanks. 

Any other questions? Kind of an interesting 
concept, that's all. 

Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 4:20 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



17 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
n)7 day of (_ L^^e^ , 2000. 




1LYN 7 J. ^IZAgJ 



orthand Reporter 



405-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 405-R when ordering. 



^ 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP - 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



6«v «'*-*«"*' 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2000 
10:05 A.M. 



406-R 



% 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2000 
10:05 A.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

PAULA R. ZINNEMANN 

Real Estate Commissioner 

SENATOR DEBRA BOWEN 

LEE ADLER 

California Association of Mortgage Brokers 

STAN WIEG 

California Association of Realtors 

TOM J . BORDONARO , JR . , Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

DAVID A. HEPBURN, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

TIM YARYAN 

Los Angeles Police Protective League 
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs 
Riverside Sheriffs Association 



10 



11 



12 



ill 



NANCY McGILL 

Californians for Parole Reform (CPR) 

WENDY TAYLOR 

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice 

KATHLEEN L. GUILLEN 
Wife of Life Inmate 



JERRY HANSEN, Inspector General 
Veterans Affairs 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

PAULA R. ZINNEMANN 

Real Estate Commissioner 1 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR DEBRA BOWEN 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Kickbacks and Rebates 2 

Interim Title Insurance 2 

• Adoption of Regulation to Prohibit 
Kickbacks and Rebates 3 

Regulation of Title Insurers 4 

Motion to Confirm 6 

Witnesses in Support: 

LEE ADLER 

California Association of Mortgage Brokers 6 

STAN WIEG 

California Association of Realtors 7 

Committee Action 7 

TOM J . BORDONARO , JR . , Member 

Board of Prison Terms 7 

Background and Experience 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Preparation for Parole Hearings 8 



Institutional Hearings Per Day 9 

Need for Correctional Packets on 

Weekend before Hearings to Prepare 10 

Training on Battered Women's Syndrome 10 

Parolees Returned for Technical 

Violations 11 

Possibility of Alternative Programs 

For Technical Violators 12 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Impact on Board Members that Governor 

Will Probably Veto Any Early Paroles 13 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Tour of CMC during Tenure in Assembly 14 

Change of Attitude toward Inmates 14 

Involvement with North County Women's 

Resource Center and Shelter 15 

Motion to Confirm 16 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

ADA Compliance 16 

Number of Prisons Where Hearings 

Are Held 17 

Reason Armstrong Case Is Being Appealed 18 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Reason for Affirmative Vote on 

Confirmation 18 

Committee Action 19 



VI 



27 



28 



DAVID A. HEPBURN, Chairman 

Board of Prison Terms 19 

Background and Experience 19 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Improve as an Organization ..20 

Need for Board Members to Get 

Informational Packets on Weekend Prior to 

Monday Hearings 21 

Commitment Crimes of Lifers 21 

Kidnapping 22 

Percentage of Murderers with No 

Prior Criminal Behavior 23 

Logic of Keeping Murderers in Prison 

When Lowest Rate of Recidivism Is 

Among Murderers 23 

Number of Murderers Found 

Suitable for Parole 24 

Decision Review 24 

Reasons for Disapproving a 

Parole Date in Decision Review 24 

Only 5 Out of 21 Inmates Granted Parole 

Dates Were Released 25 

Reason for Appeal in Armstrong Case 26 

Ability of Murderers to Have 

Parole Date Granted 27 

Governor's View Impinging on Board 27 

Number of Times Nominee Has Voted for 

Parole Date 28 

Policy Limiting Number of Parole Dates 

Granted to Lifers 28 



Vll 



Need for Training of Board Members on 

Battered Women's Syndrome 28 

Status of New Regulations on BWS 29 

Need to Mandate Consideration of 

BWS in Parole Hearings 3 

"Shall" Versus "May" in Regulations for 

BWS Considerations 3 

Walk- through Decision Review Process 31 

Second-Guessing Original Hearing Panel in 
Decision Review 32 

Inaudible Hearing Transcript as Reason for 
Denial of Granted Parole Date 3 6 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Percentage of Cases Overturned by 

Review Process 37 

Possibility of Need for Review When 

Parole Date Is Denied 37 

Any Category of Cases Where 

Automatic Review Would Take Place if 

Parole Is Denied 3 8 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Number of Current Commissioners 38 

Women on Commission 3 8 

Should Governor Appoint More Women to 

Parole Board 39 

Feelings Regarding Women Convicted of 

Murder before BWS Defense 40 

Criteria for Parole Eligibility 40 



Vlll 



Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Requirement for Notification of 
Victim's Family Prior to Parole 
Hearing 43 

Impact of Victim's Family at 

Hearing on Members of Panel ..43 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Should Victim's Family Have Impact on 

Decision of Parole 44 

Progress on Better Sound System for 

Transcripts of Parole Hearings 45 

Reimbursement Rates for Attorneys 45 

Ability of Inmate to Respond to 

Comments from Victim' s Family 46 

Statute that Youth Authority Uses 47 

Chairman's Slowness in Improving 

Fairness of Process 48 

Witness in Support: 

TIM YARYAN 

Los Angeles Police Protective League 

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs 

Riverside Sheriffs Association 50 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

NANCY McGILL 

Californians for Parole Reform 50 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON of MR. HEPBURN re: 

Pre-prepared Decisions 52 

Length of Deliberations 52 

Inability of Inmate to Discuss Parole 
Suitability Factors 52 



IX 



Request by CHAIRMAN BURTON for Information to 

Support Allegations of Unfair Hearings 53 

WENDY TAYLOR 

California Attorneys for Justice 54 

KATHLEEN GUILLEN 

Wife of Lifer Inmate 55 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON of MR. HEPBURN re: 

Familiarity with Above Case 60 

Motion to Confirm 60 

Committee Action 61 

JERRY HANSEN, Inspector General 

Veterans Affairs 61 

Background and Experience 61 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Adequacy of Present Budget 62 

Deaths at Barstow Home 63 

Problems with Cal-Vet Insurance Program 63 

Priority of Issues 64 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Investigation of Allegations of 

Misconduct by Former Secretary Alvarado 65 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Propriety of Answering Questions about 

Ongoing Investigations 65 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Status of Barstow Home 66 



Recommendation to Make Bars tow Home 

More Domicilial 67 

Suggestion to Pull All Skilled Nursing 
Facilities Out of Barstow 67 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Governor's Suggestion that Barstow 

Become Domiciliary Care vs. Skilled 

Nursing Care 68 

Motion to Confirm 69 

Committee Action 70 

Termination of Proceedings 70 

Certificate of Reporter 71 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Bowen. 

SENATOR BOWEN: Good morning, Mr. Chair, 
Committee Members. 

I'd like to give all the virtues of the next 
nominee's record. I'm told that I will never get a bill out of 
the Senate again if I do that. So, I will briefly present to 
you Paula Reddish Zinnemann, from beautiful Venice, California, 
as Governor Davis' nominee to head up the Department of Real 
Estate. 

As you all know from background material, 
Ms. Zinnemann has been involved in the real estate industry 
since 1965, ran her own brokerage firm for 24 years, and worked 
as a real estate mediator and arbitrator for some 13 years. 

She was appointed by the Governor to the Real 
Estate Commissioner's post last November, where she has, for the 
past nine months, been responsible for running a 300-person 
department that oversees the regulation of some 300, 000 
licensees . 

And on that note, I would like to introduce 
Ms. Zinnemann to you. Feel free to be as tough as you want. 
She is from Venice where, for every 40 citizens, there are 50 
strongly held opinions. So, she can take anything you have to 
give her. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Thank you so much, Senator Bowen, 
for taking time to be here to introduce me, and I appreciate the 
risk you took in doing it. 



I've also been advised that brevity is the order 
of the day. So I will briefly reiterate my commitment to 
continuing the outreach and consumer education, to look for ways 
to streamline the subdivision process while keeping consumer 
protections in place, and to cooperate and collaborate with 
federal and state agencies in an effort to eliminate predatory 
and fraudulent lending practices. 

And without more, I will see if anyone has any 
questions from me. 

I also look forward to working very closely with 
the Legislature and the Davis administration. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I carried a bill a while ago 
that dealt with basically, it was a dispute between realtors and 
title insurance companies, and dealt with what some thought were 
unethical actions on the part of the title insurers as far as 
kickbacks and rebates and things of this sort. 

There were a couple actually title insurance 
companies that were supportive of the bill, and appalled at what 
some of the bigger title insurance companies do. 

Could you give me your comments on what, if 
anything, your department could do about those actions of title 
insurance, one. 

And one of the issues in the bill was that of 
retitle insurance, where basically if you got title insurance on 
your house today and sold it to someone else, or even 
transferred it within a month, they went back, did the whole 
title search from Day One that you had just paid for, and 
charged you, you know, a full fee like it was the first time 



anything happened. 

I wonder if you could comment on those issues. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Yes. It's my understanding that 
at the time the lenders were the parties that were requiring 
title insurance from the beginning rather than the interim. And 
I believe that that was where the main opposition came. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, the main opposition came to 
me from the title insurers and not the lenders, for whatever 
reason. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Well, it's my understanding also 
that the lenders are the ones that were requiring it. 

I personally don't have a problem if the lenders 
who do have the interim policies don't object to it, because if 
there is a safe mechanism to ensure that they're insured for 
that time lapse, beyond that, I have no issue with that. 

But with respect to the rebates, we have taken 
several of these matters to hearing, and we have not been able 
to prevail based on the language in our statute, which requires 
that you have to prove that it was an inducement to give the 
title business to that title company. And at hearing, each of 
the brokers who had been charged with taking rebates or monies 
for goods in kind from the title company have demonstrated that 
they had previously used that title company and given them a 
similar percentage of their business. 

So, we are still looking at it, and we still have 
a few that are under investigation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can't you adopt a regulation? 

MS. ZINNEMANN: We can look at doing that. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can't you do it? 

MS. ZINNEMANN: We can try to do it. We will 
certainly look at that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you mean, try? You 
either do it or you don't. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Well, we will, you know, have our 
legislative people prepare some kind of legislation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I said regulation. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: It's a regulation that — and I 
believe the title company regulations say that it's a per se 
violation. 

Ours requires proof that it was done as an 
inducement for the business. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who regulates the title 
insurers? 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Department of Insurance. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the Insurance Commissioner, 
if you refer — you might have better luck with the new one than 
you would have with the old one. 

Do you refer to the Insurance Commissioner the 
title insurance companies that the realtor allegedly accepted 
the gratuity from? 

MS. ZINNEMANN: It was the opposite. 

When there were some title insurers that were 
fined by the Insurance Commissioner — without hearing or 
without findings of fact, I might add — they referred a list of 
brokers who had received this compensation to the department, 
and the department investigated all of these cases, took several 



of them to hearing, some of which we lost. One of the cases, we 
entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement with him. 

But the referrals have come from the title 
company. And to my best knowledge, we've not had any consumer 
complaints on the issue. 

The other thing that I think that you should know 
in the title industry, it's not just title company and real 
estate brokers. The title industry, for a long time, has gone 
to solicit business in a similar manner from escrow companies 
and from lenders as well. 

So, I think that if the title companies would 
stop doing this, and I know there are some of them that have 
very strict policies against giving money or offering goods to 
real estate companies, escrow companies, or lenders, I think 
that's where it has to stop. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does the statute prohibit you 
from doing a regulation that strengthens your ability to deal 
with this stuff? 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Our statute or theirs? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yours. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Our statute requires us to prove 
that the compensation was an inducement for the business. And 
frequently, the inducement for the business, at least this is 
what the brokers have responded, is the service given by that 
particular title company. 

As someone who has been familiar and involved in 
this business for a long time, I can tell you that there are 
certain companies whose services are above and beyond the 



others. And as a practitioner, I would use that company. 

I never was in a position where any of them ever 
offered me anything, nor did I ask for anything, but I dealt 
with the company when I could that gave me best service. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The question that I asked was, 
is there anything in the statute that precludes a stronger 
regulation that may make it easier to crack down? 

MS. ZINNEMANN: No, there's nothing that 
precludes it. It would just require an amendment to it or a 
revision of it. And I will certainly — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm talking about a regulation. 
I'm not talking about a statute. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: No, I used the wrong term. I'm 
talking about our regulations as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I'd like you to take a 
look at that, maybe, and let us know. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: I will definitely do that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Hughes. 

Excuse me, do you have any family here you want 



to introduce? 



MS. ZINNEMANN: No, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, briefly. 

MR. ADLER: Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm Lee Adler, 



representing California Association of Mortgage Brokers. 

We very much support the confirmation of 
Commissioner Reddish-Zinnemann. 

MR. WIEG: Mr. Chairman, I'm Stan Wieg with the 
California Association of Realtors. 

We also support the Commissioner's 
confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition. 
Nobody from a title insurance company. 

Moved by Senator Hughes. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MS. ZINNEMANN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Leave the roll open. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR O'CONNELL 
added his Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Bordonaro. 

MR. BORDONARO: Good morning. I do appreciate 



8 

the opportunity/ and I am honored to be here, to have been 
appointed by two governors to the Boards of Prison terms. And I 
do appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. 

I'd also like to just mention that we also have 
the honor and the challenge of acting as Governor Davis' 
oversight to the ADA Compliance Unit inside the Board of Prison 
Terms, where a transition plan has been turned over in an 
attempt, and I think not only an attempt, but will comply with 
changes to ensure that inmates' rights are being met under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. And that, again, is moving 
forward, I think, in a very positive manner, and I look forward 
to continuing that oversight and aiding those that are charged 
with that compliance. 

But I ask for your favorable consideration today 
and look forward to any questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do you prepare for the 
hearings when you have hearings? How far in advance do you get 
the materials about the inmates? 

MR. BORDONARO: Well, when the hearing's inside 
the institutions, the materials are there for us when we arrive. 
Usually on the Monday morning, we'll be there at a minimum of an 
hour early to start preparing. 

The hearings that are — when we have en banc 
hearings, we receive the packets from Sacramento anywhere from 
four to five days in advance so that we can review those. For 
instance, tomorrow there's four before us as a full board. So, 
I've had those packets since last week. 

So, depending on whether those are before the 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



full body, or when we're inside the institutions as a 
three -member panel. 

But at the very minimum, an hour or so beforehand 
do we have the packets, unless it's a case, for instance, the 
Rosenkrantz case. I had a plethora of information weeks 
beforehand. 

But the information's there. You would have to 
obviously dig into it. But again, prepare it beforehand, and 
then — that would be on a Monday. 

On a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday hearings, I 
usually take the packets home with me the night before, the 
Board packets, files, to prepare for the next day. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many hearings would you 
have, like, say in a day in the institution? 

MR. BORDONARO: In a full day, up to six, and 
sometimes seven, possibly eight. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How could you possibly, within 
an hour — and I don't mean you. Just anybody — give justice 
to eight people's lives, what you're going to do with them, 
within an hour? 

MR. BORDONARO: Most of the information that I 
think that is relevant comes out of the hearing itself. 
Obviously, the preparation ahead of time is very important, but 
the inmates themselves are the ones that come before with the 
most of the facts and the information that's required to make 
the judgment. 

So, during the hearing, most of those relevant 
facts also are brought forth. 



10 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know this isn't you, but I 
would ask you to take it back. 

If they can give you the stuff Monday morning, 
they ought to give it to you Friday afternoon, so maybe in 
between football, or whatever, you have a weekend maybe to 
prepare yourself. It would be like walking into a policy 
hearing with that particular file. 

MR. BORDONARO: Sure, sure. And again, Monday 
mornings when you get to the institution, you've got the 
information. You have to prepare for the next day by taking 
home the packets for that next day. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand, but I think on 
Fridays they ought to get the information to you on Fridays. 
I'm sure that nobody working in the office is working Saturday 
and Sunday to put this stuff in order. 

MR. BORDONARO: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have you had training on the 
battered women syndrome issues? Did they give you training as a 
Commissioner? 

MR. BORDONARO: A month ago, we had a training 
session with actually all the Board Members were there, 
including quite a few of the Deputy Commissioners. And we had, 
I believe, it was around three hours of training with — I can't 
remember his name right now — but it was through a renowned 
criminologist that had studied the issue for many years. 

And it was very enlightening, very enlightening, 
very helpful . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now, Governor Wilson, you 



11 

served how long under Governor Wilson? 

MR. BORDONARO: December of '98 to May of '99. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Five months, and you've been on 



this one — 



you've done? 



MR. BORDONARO: Since May of this year. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is the first hearing that 

MR. BORDONARO: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: On this issue. 

Have you held any hearings down there at 



Frontera? 



MR. BORDONARO: No. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You haven't been there yet. 

In 1992, about 40 percent of parolees were 
returned for technical violations. In 1999, that jumped up to 
58 percent. Last year, over 70,000 parolees were sent back to 
prison on technical violations, a number that is significantly 
higher than people sent to jail for crimes committed and found 
guilty. 

What is the theory on so many people being sent 
back on technical violations? 

MR. BORDONARO: I'm a little bit at a 
disadvantage, because I'm not an expert. I'm not sure what a 
technical violation is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Might be flunking a drug test; 
might be associating with undesirable people. 

MR. BORDONARO: Well, I imagine that the theory 
would be, if you've done time for a serious crime, then you 



12 

would be expected to walk the line, so to speak. 

I would think that if drugs were part of the 
commitment offense, then that's something that they should be 
held a little closer, you know, held a little more liable for. 

If it wasn't part of the commitment offense, then 
I think that should be something that should be looked at. 

But I think that each case individually would 
have to be examined. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would it not make sense that if 
somebody, let's say they, you know, came up dirty in a urine 
test, that they may try to think of some other type of outside 
programs, as opposed to laying it on the state taxpayers, that 
kind of cost? 

MR. BORDONARO: You know, that's a very valid 
question, a very valid concern. 

One of the things that has always concerned me, 
and inmates themselves have told me, when talking to lifers 
about what their parole plans are, and speaking of the fact, the 
fact, that there's not a lot of support available afterward, I'm 
not sure what support is available afterwards. 

I think that's one of the areas that the 
Legislature should take a very close look at, because we have 
inmates that come before us that have nowhere to go. There's 
halfway houses that aren't available. There's jobs that aren't 
available. There's programs that aren't available. So, their 
chances of making it on the streets are reduced. 

I think, again, that's one of the concerns that I 
have. 



13 

One of the things that I've seen is the support 
network is rather thin after they are released. And I'm not 
sure where that came from historically, why that's true. 

But I think you have a valid point. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I was just curious, in terms of 
yourself and the other membership on the Board, what kind of a 
psychological impact does it have knowing that the Governor is 
probably going to veto any early parole? Does that have an 
impact on you following the individual merits of each and every 
case? 

MR. BORDONARO: And I have talked — actually, 
we've had this conversation before us when we have an inmate who 
is found suitable for parole, and when we determine that, and at 
the hearing, so many times the inmates will ask, what's going to 
happen? 

And I view it as my fellow Commissioners do, that 
it's not our job to second-guess what the Governor's going to 
do. It's our job to find suitability. 

If we find they're suitable for parole, we give 
them the parole date, and then rest of the process works its way 
through. 

The Governor's never spoken to me about how to 
vote, and I've never spoken to him about what he will do when he 
receives them. 

But I do take every case and try to remove myself 
from all those outside influences, which I believe I do a pretty 
good job at. And if I find an inmate as suitable for parole, 






14 

then we'll set the date and let it go from there. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: When you were in the Assembly, 
did you have any major penal institutions in your district? 

MR. BORDONARO: I have the California Men's 
Colony in San Luis Obispo that is located in the district, yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think, perhaps, that was 
one of the reasons that you were chosen by the previous 
Governor, and then chosen by this one, because of the experience 
that you had on the Board? 

MR. BORDONARO: I can't really say. Quite 
possibly, but I can't say for sure. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Did you tour that institution 
when you were in the Assembly? And what was your attitude 
toward inmates then, and is it the same now? 

MR. BORDONARO: Yes, I did tour the facility. 

And I believe that my view of the inmates has 
probably somewhat changed. When you tour a facility, you don't 
have — there's no interaction with the inmates. When you're on 
the Board, there's quite a bit of interaction with the inmates. 

CMC is a — I guess you can call it a Cadillac 
for a state prison. It's not a very, relatively speaking — I'm 
not saying prison's fun where ever you're at or incarcerated 
at — but CMC, we have there at CMC a lot of very, I mean, 
they're good inmates. They've earned their way, so to speak, to 
CMC. 

So, my attitude has changed because you actually, 



15 

with the interaction, you get to know them. And, you know, with 
that, the attitude has definitely changed somewhat. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Tell me a little bit about you. 
You belong to a lot of organizations, and I see one here is the 
North County Women's Resource Center and Shelter. What is that 
organization about? What you have you learned from that? 

MR. BORDONARO: It's a nonprofit organization in 
the northern part of San Luis Obispo County that provides 
housing for women who are battered and their families. Provides 
transitional living arrangements. Helps those that are battered 
to break away from that abusive situation. Gives them a place 
to live for as long as we possibly can. 

The houses are full. We have hardly any 
vacancies. In fact, the board is now trying to buy a second 
home so that we can triple our capacity. 

But it does provide counseling and resources to 
transition those — out of those types of abusive 
situations. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Since you have been on the Board 
of Prison Terms, you've said that your attitudes have changed a 
lot. How? 

MR. BORDONARO: Well, I think people — we find 
people that can change. And I've found some that, you know, 
years ago, I may have, if I was on the outside, would have said 
this is a type of person will never change. 

But I think that I've learned probably the 
biggest lesson, is that people can change. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 



16 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are they moving along on the 
ADA compliance stuff? I know you, in theory, were supposed to 
be there, but I don't think you were in the loop at the 
beginning. 

MR. BORDONARO: Right. I am definitely in the 
loop now, and they're moving forward. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you pushing them? 

MR. BORDONARO: Yes. As you know, it's — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Knowing how quickly we did this 
stuff in the Assembly? 

MR. BORDONARO: Yeah. 

As you know, Senator, it's never as quick as you 
want it to move. But I do think that they are moving forward, 
and it is positive movement. But it's a slow process, and it's 
a massive process. 

We had to, for instance, just for an example, 
every jail facility where any type of hearings were held had to 
be surveyed, which was a massive undertaking in and of itself, 
was to survey those jail facilities. And surprisingly, some of 
the brand-new jails — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Were noncompliant? 

MR. BORDONARO: Were noncompliant. And so, the 
transition plan, obviously, every single one of those that are 
noncompliant, we found ways to at least temporarily have 
hearings in a manner which does meet with the ADA, even if it's 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



17 

a temporary fix until the jail can make a permanent fix. 

In other words, moving hearing rooms, or 
providing equipment on a temporary basis for the hearing 
impaired, and things such as that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many prisons are there 
where you hold hearings? 

MR. BORDONARO: I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Roughly. Eight? Ten? 

MR. BORDONARO: At least. Probably half of the 
prisons that we have, which is — how many prisons do we have? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I was going to ask you. 

MR. BORDONARO: I think there's 32. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So it would be 16. 

Is there more than one hearing room that you use 
in the prisons where you go? 

MR. BORDONARO: Some of them have more than one 
hearing room, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The point I was trying to make, 
it was 16 sites. It wasn't an enormous task to walk in each 
site and say — 

MR. BORDONARO: No. The county jails are the 
problem, are the ones that were the enormous task. We have — 
there are hearings at the county jails for relocation and other 
items. 

The lifer hearings are in the prisons. That was 
a simpler task because of the number. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are they all done? 

MR. BORDONARO: Yes. 



18 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you know why the 
Armstrong case is being appealed? 

MR. BORDONARO: No, I don't. I don't know why 
that is. I still don't fully understand. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here? 

MR. BORDONARO: No, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any friends? 

MR. BORDONARO: I hope so. I hope they're all on 
the Committee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 
Witnesses in opposition. 

Moved by Senator Lewis. 

I'm going to vote to confirm you because I 
believe that, one, we've dealt with each other being against and 
being for certain issues, working together and working apart. 
But I think you've got the guts and the courage and the 
sensitivity to do what you think is right, not withstanding what 
other pressures there's going to be. 

You may not always do things the way I see them, 
but I've always had the utmost respect for you. I think, by and 
large, I'm responsible for your appointment because it was like, 
"We'll show you. We'll give you Bordonaro, " which was fine with 
me because I've always trusted you and always found you to be — 
and I really don't even believe in the phrase — but I have 
always found you to be a compassionate conservative. 

MR. BORDONARO: Thank you. I wish I had a 
copyright on that phrase. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, conservative is when we 



19 

kick people off welfare. Compassion is, we try to find a 
charity to give them food because we took the money out of their 
mouth. 

But that doesn't fit you anyway. 

Call the roll. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Based on that, I'm going to vote 
for him. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. BORDONARO: Thank you very much. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR O'CONNELL 
added his Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mr. Hepburn. 

MR. HEPBURN: Good morning. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for this 
opportunity to consider my confirmation as Chairman of the Board 
of Prison Terms. 

I've now spent nearly 30 years of my life in 
public service as a Naval Reservist, a police officer, and now 



20 

as Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms. I believe that during 
that service, I have earned a reputation for fairness, 
integrity, and professionalism. 

In the year I've served as a Commissioner and now 
Chairman, I have been impressed by the overall professional 
competence and commitment of the members of the Board, as well 
as the organization as a whole. 

At the same time, I have become concerned about 
much of the criticism and litigation that has been directed at 
the Board. No organization can survive if it isn't willing to 
regularly take a critical look at itself and determine if there 
might not be ways to improve its operation. Inasmuch as the 
functions of the Board have a profound impact on public safety, 
I see the necessity to give thoughtful consideration to any 
changes to our policies and procedures. 

Nonetheless, I believe we should keep an open 
mind to input from any source that will enhance the way the 
Board carries out its mission. I believe we can continue to 
improve as an organization without compromising public safety. 

Thank you, and I'm ready to answer any questions 
the Committee may have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you mean about improve 
as an organization? 

MR. HEPBURN: I think there always — I'm never 
satisfied with the status quo. I think there are always 
opportunities to do things better, to be more efficient, to 
increase the fairness of our procedures. I think we need to 
take a look at our regulations and the way that we operate, see 



21 

if it's the best way in all cases to do it. And always be open 
to change as the necessity arises. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you give direction to 
whoever your staff is to see that the Board members, 
commissioners/ whoever are going into Monday morning hearings 
get the information Friday afternoon? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, as a matter of fact, this is 
an issue that I need to resolve with CDC, because their 
personnel, to a large extent, put that information together for 
us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We know they ain't working on 
the weekends putting it together. 

MR. HEPBURN: No. I've had some preliminary 
discussions with the Director, Mr. Terhune, and I need to have 
some follow-up discussions with some of their staff. And we 
intend to do that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would it be helpful if we 
talked to Cal? 

MR. HEPBURN: He's totally, totally willing to do 
it. It's a matter of working out the details and getting the 
paper work to him, but that's my intention. 

Commissioners will have that information in their 
hand on Fridays, to study on Friday or over the weekend, so when 
they get to the institution on Monday, they'll be far ahead of 
the game. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Lifers have, I guess, taken 
somebody's life? 

MR. HEPBURN: Not in every case. We have some 



22 

that are kidnapping cases. I think mayhem falls under that 
category also. Usually kidnapping with the intent to commit 
extortion or robbery falls in that category also. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And kidnapping is defined as 
taking somebody from place to place. I could take you from here 
outside, and that's kidnapping. 

MR. HEPBURN: Yeah, it doesn't require a lot of 
movement . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know, and you may not, 
that the ones that are given life would probably be the ones 
that take somebody and drive them off, and lock them in a barn, 
as opposed to somebody that grabs somebody and took them from 
here to there? 

MR. HEPBURN: Not necessarily. It depends on 
what kind of crime it's connected to. And if they're doing it 
with the intent to commit a robbery, or intent to — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Unless you're doing it to write 
a book, you're doing it to do something. I mean, to commit a 
robbery. 

If I took you at gun point, and took you over to 
the next hearing room and said, "Give me your money," I've 
kidnapped you for the intent to commit robbery? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, that would be potentially a 
life sentence. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whereas, if I left you in the 
room and said, "Give me your money," it ain't. 

MR. HEPBURN: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And of those who commit who 



23 

take another person's life, do we know what percentage are an 
individual who one time took an individual's life without any 
prior criminal behavior, as opposed to, you know, a bank robber 
that's shot a couple people or had a long prison record? 

MR. HEPBURN: I don't have a specific figure on 
that for you. My sense from doing a significant number of 
hearings myself over the past year is, the vast majority have 
fairly significant criminal records. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about, because statistics 
seem to indicate that the lowest rate of recidivism is among 
people who commit murder. You know, the husband against the 
wife; the wife against the husband; boyfriend-girlfriend, some 
individual thing. 

And that being the case, what would be the logic 
of, assuming that somebody had good record in prison, had some 
place to go after prison, of keeping them in? 

MR. HEPBURN: That would certainly be one of the 
factors in determining whether or not they're suitable, one of 
the things we'd look at, is there criminal history. 

So, somebody who doesn't have that history, 
doesn't have a history as a juvenile, not a track record of 
committing violent crimes, I would say, yeah, it's more likely 
that they might be found suitable for parole. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any of them ever get found 
suitable? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any of them ever get out? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 



24 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know how many? 

MR. HEPBURN: I can give you some numbers from 
the past couple of years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That would be good enough. 

MR. HEPBURN: In 1999, there were 21 occasions on 
which the Board found somebody suitable for parole. There were 
actually 5 that got released. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the Governors, whoever they 
were, held back 16? 

MR. HEPBURN: Somewhere in the process, either a 
decision review may have disapproved a decision or perhaps — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Doesn't the Board control 
decision review? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, so, they were given a 
date by the hearing officer, or whoever it is, the first person. 
Then en banc, under hearing review, they got stiffed? 

MR. HEPBURN: In decision review, some of them 
will be disapproved in decision review for various reasons. 
Those that are still approved — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What would the reasons be? 

MR. HEPBURN: Might be a decision that's not 
supported by the evidence. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, at least in the law, 
you can't second-guess the trier of fact unless there's not 
scintilla of evidence to support their conclusion. 

So, if you've got you as the person hearing, and 
me as the person trying to get out. And you've heard 



25 

everything; you read the file. 

Who are these four guys who weren't part of that 
to decide that there's something there that I missed? 

MR. HEPBURN: The reason for the decision review 
process is to correct errors, or omissions, inconsistency in our 
decisions by the panels. That's what decision review looks 
at. 

Sometimes the Board, frankly, misses things, the 
panel that does the hearing. So, we have to have the decision 
review process to correct those errors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many times do you have a 
decision review process that agrees with the lower finding? 
Once it goes to decision review, you're screwed. 

MR. HEPBURN: Oh, no. Every granted date gets 
decision reviewed, so a significant number of those make it 
through decision review and get approved, and moved on to the 
Governor's Office. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, it then moves to the 
Governor, and the Governor stiffs them. 

In other words, it was 5 out of 21. So, decision 
review took care of some, or didn't, as the case may be, and 
then the Governor took care of the rest, and 5 got out. 

MR. HEPBURN: I also have to point out that those 
5 were actually — I believe all of them were from dates that 
were given a previous year. So, they're not necessarily from 
the same group of 21, because of a delay process. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, nobody might have got out 
of the 21? 



26 

MR. HEPBURN: Maybe. I can't say for sure on way 
or the other. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why is the Armstrong case being 
appealed? 

MR. HEPBURN: It was — I don't understand all 
the legal complexities. I'm not an attorney. 

I know from my perspective what's important to me 
is, we have the resources to implement our ADA compliance plan, 
which we're following through on. You've heard from 
Commissioner Bordonaro already on that issue. We're committed 
to doing that. We're doing it. We're implementing it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the Board of Prison Terms 
did not appeal? 

MR. HEPBURN: That was a decision made by the 
Attorney General's Office and the administration. It wasn't our 
call . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Attorney General's Office 
is appealing, or the Governor's Office is appealing? 

The Attorney General's just a lawyer. He takes 
direction. I can't see the Attorney General going in and 
appealing an ADA case myself. 

MR. HEPBURN: No, I think they're taking 
direction from the administration. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So it's the Governor's Office 
determined to appeal it? 

MR. HEPBURN: I would assume so, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems that your comment is 
in a little variation with the Governor's view, that no inmate 



27 

convicted of murder should be paroled. 

As I heard you, if you have somebody without a 
record that, for whatever reason, was one of these people that 
really was a — not a nice thing — but was a one-time, if you 
pardon the pun, shot at taking a life of another, that in most 
instances probably would have been either familial or close, 
that they are not, ipso facto, ineligible to have a parole date, 
in your mind? 

MR. HEPBURN: No, actually, nobody is. And the 
Board acts independent of the Governor's review authority, of 
course. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, his point of view does not 
impinge upon your independent judgment. 

In other words, is there a feeling aboard among 
the members, "Why should we do this, because he's going to turn 
it down anyway?" 

MR. HEPBURN: No. Certainly, I think it would be 
disingenuous to say I'm not familiar with his remarks and his 
policy on it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It would be disingenuous to say 
that you -- 

MR. HEPBURN: That I was not familiar with his 
comments . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay. 

MR. HEPBURN: But the Board acts independently. 
We regularly recommend parole dates, and then we submit them to 
the Governor's Office, and he takes his action accordingly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many time have you voted an 



28 

inmate a parole date? 

MR. HEPBURN: I don't know the exact number, but 
I would say probably six or eight times. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Out of how many cases? 

MR. HEPBURN: Out — of I've probably done ~ I 
became Chairman in March, so I didn't do too many hearings after 
that, from August to March. Maybe 500 cases. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Chair doesn't do hearings. 

MR. HEPBURN: Does occasionally. I did them last 
week, and I'm doing them this week. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is it more just sort of like an 
administrative — 

MR. HEPBURN: It's the administrative head of the 
Board, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there a policy, either 
expressed or implied, limiting the number of parole dates 
granted to lifers? 

MR. HEPBURN: No. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm a little bit concerned with 
what Mr. Bordonaro said, that he was, I think, a total of about 
nine months or something on the Board before there was any 
battered women's syndrome teaching, or lessons, or whatever it 
is . 

I would hope that when members come on, there is 
an immediate, I guess, indoctrination is the right word or the 
wrong word, on that issue. And conceivably, maybe you could 
give a periodic upgrading on what's the status of what kind of 
program that you have on that. 



29 

MR. HEPBURN: Tom was not on the Board for a 
period of time last year when we did — we had training in 
December. So, since I've been on the Board in August/ we've had 
training twice for the Commissioners, and in December we did it 
for Commissioners and all the Deputy Commissioners also. 

And then we just had the most recent training 
that he referred to here about a month ago with Dr. Bowker, who 
did some additional training. 

Then we have a cadre of Deputy Commissioners who 
are specifically trained, so when they go to document — every 
lifer who's been in the institution for three years gets what's 
called a documentation hearing, look at all the issues in their 
case. The Deputy Commissioners who do those hearings at the 
women's institutions are trained to identify the BWS issues and 
determine whether or not they require additional investigation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Last year, there was a process 
of having new regs on BWS. What's the status of them, if any? 

MR. HEPBURN: We don't — we haven't formulated 
any new regulations. The current — our current regulations 
allow us to use that information, just like any other 
information that a Commissioner considers at a hearing. If 
there are BWS issues present, they would be considered as 
mitigating factors, just like, perhaps, some other mitigating 
factor, whether or not someone is suitable for parole. 

And if they establish that they're suitable for 
parole, and setting an actual date and using — we have a matrix 
in our regulations, that would be used as a mitigating factor in 
the matrix. 



30 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why shouldn't it be "shall" 
instead of they "can" consider it? Because what we're talking 
about is, we're talking about women convicted before the legal 
defense was available to them. You know, not unlike what some 
county jails and states are doing on DNA. 

That the ones that I met and testified down at 
Frontera, and I think there were like nine, and maybe one, 
maybe, would have still been in there even if they were able 
inform use the battered women's syndrome defense. 

Why shouldn't it be a mandated thing to consider? 
Doesn't mean it's locked in. 

MR. HEPBURN: I don't see any logical reason why 
we should say that it should be mandated they consider the 
information, just like — which they do. They consider it just 
like they do all other — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You said they "may," which 
means they may not. May means, you know, you might or you 
might not. 

Shall means, this is an issue to look at. 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, and we — and we just have not 
formulated the regulations yet. It is something I'm looking at. 
I understand the — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's very easy. You say 
"shall" instead of "may". I mean, it's like a one-word 
amendment . 

MR. HEPBURN: But there are degrees, too, in — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It doesn't say you shall let 
them out. It says you shall consider it. 



31 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, we've had discussions, 
and my concern is that we're looking at it, we're thinking about 
it, we're kind of engaged in it, but not doing it. 

And I know the bureaucratic stuff, but it ain't 
brain surgery. "May" to "shall" is not brain surgery. Some of 
this stuff is not brain surgery. 

I mean, it's just like having the will to do it, 
and having the will to do it doesn't mean Charley Manson's going 
to be walking the streets. It means that there's a fair 
process. 

Just like the ADA compliance was as much about 
fear of process, where, you know, people who can't see aren't 
given documents to read and saying, "Is this correct?" Or 
people that talk by sign language aren't manacled. Doesn't mean 
they would have gotten out if they could sign. It just meant 
they had a shot. 

Walk me through the decision review process. Say 
you have a three-member panel; right? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Two Commissioners and a Deputy? 

MR. HEPBURN: Usually. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: For the sake of this, let's say 
you've got two of them on there. 

They hear all the evidence, and blah, blah, blah, 
blah, blah. They set a date. 

Why should a separate unit be allowed to overturn 
the decision of that three-member panel? 



32 

MR. HEPBURN: The unit doesn't overturn the 
decision. 

What they do is, they look at the issues and make 
recommendations to three other Commissioners. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who weren't there. 

MR. HEPBURN: Who may or may not have been there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You said three other. 

MR. HEPBURN: It could be one of the same — one 
of the three could have one that was on the panel, too. That's 
possible . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, I'm really missing 
something in this process, unless the preparation for the 
initial hearing is so slip-shod, and that the Commissioners are 
so lazy, and that no one's doing the job. 

MR. HEPBURN: I don't ~ 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which I don't necessarily 
believe is the case. 

Then why do you have somebody over there, you 
know, second-guess them? What we have is, you have the 
Commissioners, none of whom that I've met are really like 
bleeding hearts. And they've decided somebody deserves a date. 

Then you've got this other group that is there as 
a stopgap. And then you've got the last stopgap is the 
Governor. 

As I said before, and I said this before, when 
Governor Wilson was there and everything else, it seems to me we 
could save a hell of a lot of money by abolishing the group, 
because enough people, you know, people don't get out anyway. 



33 

But it appears to me, I don't understand, you 
know, that process, unless we have no faith in what that first 
group is doing. We have appellate things here, but they're 
really based on matters of law, not fact. 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, the process was set up to 
correct our errors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What kind of error would it be? 

MR. HEPBURN: They may miss something in the 
record that might be significant, that might affect the 
decision. And I think it's better that we correct the error in 
advance . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mean in other words, 
there's something really significant, and when they got the 
documents, it wasn't in it? Or they were lazy and didn't read 
it? Or maybe it came Monday in the morning, and they only had 
an hour to prepare eight cases? 

What of great significance would slip by all 
three of them? Like, there's three of us sitting here, and all 
of a sudden I say, "Well, I think we ought to set a date." And 
he says, you know, "How about the fact that this is the 27th 
murder?" I say, "I missed that page." 

What is it? It seems to me just another hurdle. 
Why not just go directly to them? Forget the three-person 
panel. 

MR. HEPBURN: I think it's put there so that our 
decisions are supported by the evidence in the record, and that 
we're consistent. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What the hell are those three 



34 

guys doing? They've got evidence and a record. What are they 
doing? 

MR. HEPBURN: Most of the time, decision review 
process approves the decision that they make. 

But when we're granting dates that affect public 
safety, we look at them very carefully. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're back into public safety. 

Public safety means that when the person's let 
out, they aren't going to do what got them to the point where 
they're in; right? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And yet, on the Rosenkrantz 
case, it was the nature of the killing, not the killing itself, 
that led the board of review to overturn the date. Whether the 
manner of killing means that he was going to do it to everybody 
when he walked out, or the fact that he killed him, and he was 
going to do it to everybody when he walked out. 

I mean, public safety deals with not what got you 
there, but basically what you were like inside, what you were 
like before you did that, and are you likely to do it again. 

I mean, it just seems kind of bizarre to me that 
we would say that they missed some evidence of significance. 
All three of them missed it, which means it wasn't in the 
document, or they're all stupid. 

MR. HEPBURN: And sometimes information comes to 
light after the hearing. We'll get correspondence that gets 
sent in that should be considered. For some reason or another, 
it wasn't available to the panel. There may be a police report 



35 

associated. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Police report for somebody 
who's been in jail ten years has already been on file. I would 
assume that's the type of stuff, if you wanted it, would be in 
the record. 

It ain't like the police report happened this 
morning. It happened a long time ago. 

MR. HEPBURN: But they're not supplied in every 
case because they're not necessary in every case, because we 
have appellate decision and things that establish the facts of 
the case. 

But if there's a discrepancy between, for 
instance, what the inmate's version of what occurred and what 
the appellate decision says, in order to clear up some of those 
things, sometimes the Board will request some follow-up 
information, such as a police report. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the inmate said, "I hit him 
with my fist." The appellate court said, "The facts of this 
case are the following. Defendant Johnson took a knife and 
slashed the person's throat." 

What do you need to know, if you've got the 
appellate court's decision? Those are the facts that are laid 
out . 

Or do you think maybe that the police report's 
going to support the inmate's thing as against the appellate 
court's thing? 

MR. HEPBURN: You want to clarify — you want to 
know if the inmate is being honest with you, if he's come to 



36 

terms with what he did. And sometimes you need those reports to 
clarify that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about the one that when the 
decision review unit overturned a decision last year because 
there were a lot of inaudible parts of the transcript? That 
inmate was given a parole date, but the new hearing denied him a 
date. Do you know why? On what basis? 

First of all, you've got goofy material. And why 
would you need the material when you've three live people 
listening to it? 

But because the transcript was inaudible — as 
sometimes ours is because she can't hear what I say — but it's 
inaudible. And then, so, we deny it because we couldn't hear 
anything; although the three guys there, looking and listening, 
heard it and said it's all right. 

Then you have another hearing, and the guy gets 
stiffed. 

MR. HEPBURN: We need to have a clear record of 
the proceeding to support the findings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, don't you need to overturn 
the findings? What the hell do you need the three people for if 
you're going to do that crap? You have an appellate to overturn 
them, not to affirm them. 

You make it really difficult. Really, really, 
really, really difficult. 

Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Following up on that point, what 
percentage of cases have been overturned in the last year, or 



37 

some period of time, by the review process? 

MR. HEPBURN: In the decision review process. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes. 

MR. HEPBURN: We've got — I think the numbers 
are — I think there were eight last year that were overturned 
out of the 21. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Eight out of twenty-one. 

MR. HEPBURN: Yeah. 

SENATOR LEWIS: It seems to me that some kind of 
a review process is necessary because there sometimes/ maybe 
because the volume of cases, you know, an innocent mistake can 
be made . 

But I guess the question I have is, is it 
possible that there should be some type of cases — maybe it's 
the battered wife syndrome cases, crimes of passion where there 
were no other crimes committed, something like that — is there 
something, a review that should be allowed going the opposite 
direction, where parole is turned down, and this similar review 
process should look at whether or not that was an appropriate 
decision? 

MR. HEPBURN: We do look at them in another 
fashion. All of the decisions are reviewed for accuracy. 

Quite frankly, the volume of cases to submit to 
decision review process, we do 2,000 to 2500 cases a year. 
We're doing about 66 cases a week right now. We could not put 
them all through that same process just by sheer numbers. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is there any category of cases at 
all that you think that you'd be open to the notion of having an 



38 

automatic review if the parole board turned it down? 

Senator Burton's concerned about, you know, the 
battered wife syndrome cases, for example. 

MR. HEPBURN: I'd certainly be open to take a 
look at that. I hadn't considered that before, but I'd 
certainly take a look at that, consider doing that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Hepburn, how many 
Commissioners are presently serving now? 

MR. HEPBURN: We just had one retire, so we have 
six. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You have six, and you have a 
capacity for how many? 

MR. HEPBURN: Nine. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you have three vacancies? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How many women do you have on 
the Commission? 

MR. HEPBURN: Commissioners, we have one woman. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And the person that just left 
was a woman also? That is correct? 

MR. HEPBURN: No. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you've never had two women 
on the Board at the same time? 

MR. HEPBURN: Not — I've only been here since 
August of last year. Not in that time frame. I'm not sure 
prior. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that the Governor 



39 

should appoint another woman? 

The reason I ask that question is because a lot 
of the women who are in prison are there because of murdering 
their mates, and they were battered women. 

MR. HEPBURN: I think whoever the Governor 
appoints should be the most qualified person. If that's a 
woman, that's great. 

That's his call to make. I don't presume to 
make — 

SENATOR HUGHES: You don't advocate for women. 

MR. HEPBURN: — advocate that position for him. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I mean, does a woman make a 
difference in terms of their point of view? 

Now, the woman who is presently on the Commission 
is a police officer, ex-police officer; is that correct? 

MR. HEPBURN: No. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, she is not. 

Do you think it would help to have a woman who 
was a police officer, like you were, on the Commission, too? 

MR. HEPBURN: I think it could. She might be 
able to provide some insight that maybe one of — the rest of us 
may not have. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And do you think that women have 
different points of view, even if they weren't of a law 
enforcement background, even if it were an ex-legislator, even 
if it were someone from an occupation that has nothing to do 
with prisons or paroles, would make a significant input into the 
deliberations? 



40 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, I think they do have different 
view points. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As long as she's qualified. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Oh, she will be probably overly 
qualified if she gets to that point to be appointed. 

Do you think it would help you in your capacity 
in terms of making decisions and having people who are 
dedicated? I mean, it's a voluminous job that you have. It 
must be mind-boggling. 

And sometimes, someone from a little different 
background brings a little different perspective. 

How do you feel about all of these women in the 
prisons that Mr. Burton went to, and they're going nowhere 
fast? 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, I'm concerned about the 
issue. We've committed considerable resources in our 
Investigations Division, and our Chief of Investigations is a 
woman who's very concerned about those issues. And she has a 
total commitment to these issues, and has, going back a number 
of years. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you have a commitment to 
these issues? 

MR. HEPBURN: I do, and she knows that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: When you look at reconsideration 
or consideration of an inmate's suitability for parole, what is 
your criteria? What's the highest priority that you look to for 
the things that this person has done while they've been 
incarcerated to make them eligible? 



41 

■ 

And this is gender free. I'm not talking about 
what the woman has done, or what the man has done. 

What would be the accomplishment of the prisoner 
that would impress you the most? 

MR. HEPBURN: The one thing that impresses me the 
most, I guess, as far as institutional behavior goes is 
disciplinary-free behavior throughout their incarceration. And 
it's not that often that you see that. It's a difficult place 
to stay out of trouble. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Stay out of trouble, but it's 
not just staying out of the trouble. 

Don't some of the inmates accomplish something 
else there, not just staying out of trouble, but being a good 
inmate? 

What do you think it takes to judge a person as 
being a good inmate? Someone that keeps their mouth shut? Or 
someone that never gets into trouble? 

Or, there any other things that an inmate could 
do to earn some brownie points in your estimation? 

MR. HEPBURN: There are a lot of things. 

You asked me initially to identify the one, the 
main thing, which I identified. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes, stay out of trouble was the 
main thing. 

MR. HEPBURN: There are a whole range of things 
that they can do to improve themselves while they're in the 
institution, including educational opportunities, vocational 
opportunities. A number of programs, counseling programs. 



42 

Down at CIW, one of the women's institutions, 
they have a tremendous number of programs that many of them take 
advantage of and participate in. And you see the significant 
change in them from the time they came in the institution until 
15-20 years later, when you may be conducting a parole hearing. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm not just talking about women 
now. I'm just talking about prisoners in general. 

You mentioned education, so that could be a male 
or female who pursued making themselves more qualified to be 
more productive citizens should they be granted parole; right? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What else? 

MR. HEPBURN: All those things that I listed. 
They work, have an opportunity to work in the institution. Are 
they working? Are they staying disciplinary free? Have they 
developed a vocation? Have they availed themselves an 
opportunity for different counseling programs, and things of 
that nature? 

Are they doing positive things? Some of them get 
involved in assisting other inmates and that sort of thing. And 
they get involved in programs with — juvenile programs that 
sometimes will bring them into the institution, and they'll 
counsel the juveniles. 

There's a lot of positive things that they can 
do. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: One question. 



43 

During the parole hearings, sometimes or maybe 
all the time, the victim's family is required to come in, or 
asked, or invited to come in and testify. 

Is that the normal procedure? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yeah, they are notified, if they 
ask to be, of any upcoming hearing. It's required by the Penal 
Code. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: How important is that in your 
evaluation of the inmate's ability to be paroled? 

MR. HEPBURN: It is important to get the input, 
and see how, if it was a surviving victim in the case of 
something like a kidnapping or a next-of-kin situation. It 
reminds the Commissioners of the personal impact of the crime 
that the inmate committed. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: You mean you have to be reminded 
by those individuals? 

Because it's a traumatic experience, every year 
or two years, when the parole comes up, and those victims have 
to come in and relive that once again, and try and make sure 
that that individual is not paroled. 

MR. HEPBURN: It is. And I see that. I've 
certainly experienced that emotional impact. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Is it necessary? It may be 
directed, but I'm asking you, do you think it's necessary? 

MR. HEPBURN: I don't know if it's necessary as 
much as I think it enhances the process. I think it's good to 
give them the opportunity to do that. I think it has somewhat 
of a cathartic effect for the family. And I think it's good for 



44 

inmate in a lot of cases to hear what the impact was of their 
actions . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What you say is true. It was 
the victims groups that fought to put that law on the books, so 
it's kind of a double-headed — 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I know, but if you deal with 
these people, and they request a letter every two years or every 
year, whenever the parole comes up, and they have to go through 
this all the time, I don't know, it just appears to me that it 
shouldn't be required. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's not required. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I know it's not required. But 
those people, given the opportunity, feel obligated then to go 
and testify. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, if everything pointing to 
the individual being set a date, then, of course, by and large, 
I think it's a very distinct minority of the victims or victims' 
families that would show up to support a date. I mean, there 
are some that have done that, even in the case of capital 
offenses . 

Should that or would that, like, just outweigh 
everything else? By and large, I would think that most, as 
Senator Knight said, the victims groups would go through the 
trauma of coming. Basically, they're saying, "Let the person 
stay in." 

MR. HEPBURN: It does have an impact on your 
decision, sure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Should it? 



45 

MR. HEPBURN: I think it should. I think we need 
to know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can't you almost assume that, 
by and large, greatly by and large, that the victims, or the 
families of the victims are going to basically not be for 
letting somebody out, no matter what? 

MR. HEPBURN: In most cases, that's true. I've 
actually had some coming in — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There have been a few, but I 
think it's just human nature is going to say, you know, whatever 
happened, happened, and keep the person in. 

I think that may be part of the most mosaic, but 
whether or not it should override, I don't really know. 

Are they doing something to get a better either 
taping session, transcription system, or something, so that 
people don't have their dates shut off because of a mechanical 
flaw? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, we're testing three new sound 
systems right now. I haven't gotten feedback yet on the 
transcripts from those hearings, but we've got something that 
we're going to propose in the near future. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are you going to do on 
reimbursement rates for attorneys? 

MR. HEPBURN: We supported a higher rate in the 
Governor's budget last year. I believe it got pared down a 
little bit by the LAO. And I'm sure there wouldn't be any 
objection by the administration to support that higher rate next 
time around. 



46 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What about the travel stuff, 
like if they've got to go up to Susanville, or places way out? 

MR. HEPBURN: We look at those on a case-by-case 
basis to approve travel time for attorney. 

Usually when they go someplace remote like 
Susanville, they're there for the full week. So, they travel 
once, but they do 22 hearings when they're up there. But we do 
allow them some time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then we had the discussion 
about the inmate's ability to respond to or correct the victim's 
statements, similar to what they do in the Youth Authority, 
where basically the victim or the victim's family will leave the 
room, and then they would have a chance to comment on that? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yeah. I've looked at that issue 
and had our legal division do some research into how that's done 
in criminal trials. 

As we've already discussed, it is an emotional, 
traumatic experience for the families to be in there and have to 
make those statements in most cases. 

What they do in criminal trials is — and the 
reason for the victim to be there, really, is not to talk about 
the facts of the case. It's just to talk about the impact on 
the next of kin and the surviving members. And that's what the 
Commissioners are listening for. 

And when a victim goes to a criminal trial and 
makes a statement, an impact statement, if they inadvertently 
say something, or intentionally say something that's in conflict 
with what's in the record, the facts of the case, the judge 



47 

makes a comment on the record that, "That information isn't 
before me, and I won't be considering that information." 

And what I would like to do is instruct our 
Commissioners to make a similar comment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's wrong with doing what 
the CYA does? 

MR. HEPBURN: I'm not sure. I don't have an 
answer yet on the legal issue there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What the hell's the legal 
issue? They're doing it. You can do it. 

MR. HEPBURN: The Penal Code gives them the right 
to be there, and I don't know that we can exclude them through 
part of the hearing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I think they're allowed 
to be at Youth things. I believe that they're allowed to come 
to make their statements. I don't know if they're required to 
be there for the whole length of it or not. 

All you have to do is read the statute. That 
will kind of tell you something. Did you ever read the statute? 

MR. HEPBURN: I talked to people from YOPB about 
their procedure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you ever read the statute 
that we're talking about? 

MR. HEPBURN: For YOPB or for us? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No. A concern is, or a reason 
for not doing something, is that the statute, I think, requires 
that the victims be informed, thereby allowing them to be 
present to testify or to comment. That that may then be a legal 



3d 

impediment to saying, although I guess the victims could get the 
option. 

Let's assume that there's no way in the world 
that you could ask them to be excused to spare them the 
situation, that we would want to spare them. 

But I guess then also, the option could be given 
whether they do want to sit there, or whether they would not 
want to be present while this person's saying the thing, I 
guess, a clear reading of the statute. 

It is a little bit different when a judge says 
that's not before me, than when basically one of the hearing 
things. And I think that it's something that clearly ought to 
be looked at. 

I think one of the grave concerns that I've had 
is that it seems slower than molasses in January to get any 
movement from you as the Chair, and even movement saying, "No, 
we aren't going to do that. We don't like it," you know, take 
your best shot. 

We just get, "Well, yeah, that's something, and 
we're working on it, and we're thinking about it, and we're 
trying this, and we're talking to this guy." 

I mean, again, we're trying to make this process 
at least a fair process. And if everybody's a bad person, 
everybody's done terrible things, and everybody's a bad risk, 
and everybody's been written up 15 times, they're probably not 
going to get out. But they ought to have a shot at sitting 
there so you can look at his record and say, "Are you kidding 
me? Would you let yourself out if you had this?" 



49 

So, I really want to get an answer back on that. 

There is a problem, a time problem. And the only 
reason we're having this hearing today is, there is time problem 
with your appointment that dies today. There are two others 
that well could be gone by the end of December. 

And you have the ability, between now and that 
hearing, to do something or not. 

And as for me, as they used to say in Germany, 
it's mox nix. It doesn't really matter. 

But I think it should matter to you, and it 
should matter to your two Commissioners that are out there, that 
are out there waiting. 

One of the reasons that I felt it was important 
to have this hearing is that the Secretary has convinced me 
that, for the Board to move forward in certain ways, that you're 
important to that process, given our interchanges. Sometime I'd 
like to sit down and debate that with him. 

But on the basis of that is the only reason that 
we're having this. 

If there's no questions from Members of the 
Committee, do you have family here that you'd like to introduce? 

MR. HEPBURN: Sure. I'd like to introduce my 
girlfriend, Midori Robles. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's nothing personal; just 
business. 

Okay, witnesses in support briefly, please. 

MR. YARYAN: Tim Yaryan, representing the Los 
Angeles Police Protective League, the Association for Los 



50 

Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Riverside Sheriffs Association. 

I talked with Ted Hunt this morning, the current 
President of the League. Dave was his predecessor. He would 
like to be here; he's in Washington, D.C., but he basically 
asked the Committee to consider that Dave was President of the 
Protective League for a reason. He was considered by his peers 
to be fair, impartial, objective and thoughtful in his decision 
making process. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mean he wasn't representing 
them aggressively before the City Council and the Chief? 

MR. YARYAN: I think that's being fair and 
thoughtful and objective. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. YARYAN: And he was unanimously elected by 
his peers. And I think he carries those same qualities over to 
the Board, and we urge his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses? Any witnesses 
in opposition? 

MS. McGILL: Commissioner, Members, my name is 
Nancy McGill. I obviously oppose the appointment. 

Penal Code 5075 indicates that we should have a 
Board that is a cross-section of society, and currently we have 
a Board that is primarily of backgrounds of law enforcement or 
an affiliation of that. 

I also have a problem with the tremendous amount 
of contradictions that I hear here in regards to what the Board 
should be doing and what is actually happening. 

We have 19,000 lifers; 19 were approved by the 



51 

Board in '99, I believe. That's less than one percent. 

I know for a fact that — and inmates have been 
completely totally disciplinary- free for a period of 15 years. 
They have job offers in their files for $50,000 a year. They 
have done self-help programs. And they have a positive 
psychological report. 

They have been denied parole because they have 
been told that they have not job skilled trained. They do not 
have enough adequate psychological help, but yet the Board does 
not give any direction or guidelines as to what is expected of 
them. They just don't have adequate self-help programs. 

The inmates are sometimes told that because they 
have a stable social history, both in prison and in the life 
prior to their incarceration, that they cannot determine the 
predictability of the inmate. Therefore, they have to deny 
parole. 

I don't feel that the matrix is being followed. 
And when the inmate is reviewed, it is primarily the list of 
unsuitability factors, versus any of the suitability factors. I 
personally know of an inmate who reaches and goes over and above 
and beyond the suitability factors, and those are never 
discussed in the hearing. 

There is frequently maybe one sentence that says 
something positive about the inmate, and other than that, 
nothing else is said. 

I think we are wasting our tax dollars supporting 
this Board, and especially one that doesn't meet Penal Code 
5075. 



52 

I also feel that the Board, basically it's a 
blanket denial of the inmate. They recess for approximately 
five minutes. They enter a room that has no computer/ no 
typewriter, and they reappear with the denial. There is no way 
that they could reappear with a five-minute recess and have an 
entire typed report saying the inmate is denied. 

The inmate is cut off when he is trying to answer 
a question. I don't think it's a fair hearing. And I don't see 
how that a Board that is of primarily law enforcement background 
or affiliation can give a fair hearing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you comment on that? In 
other words, it's your opinion that they might be already 
walking in there with the typed out decision? 

MS. McGILL: Absolutely, no question in my mind 
about that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you comment on that? 

MR. HEPBURN: I'd be happy to. 

There are — we have two forms. One for parole 
denied, and one for parole granted. It's a format that's 
pre-printed, but you write in the specifics for each case on the 
form. So, it doesn't take you a lot of time to fill it in. 

I don't think it's very often that you have a 
five-minute deliberation. That's just not been my experience. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can't the inmate discuss his 
suitability things? 

MS. McGILL: The inmate can try to, but he's 
frequently cut off when he is attempting to respond. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you say about that? 



53 

MR. HEPBURN: It hasn't been my practice, and it 
hasn't been my experience with the Commissioners I've worked 
with. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you look at the suitability 
factors? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The inmate can basically sit 
there, because I imagine, why do you think you're suitable, or 
whatever. And they go: A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. 

I imagine that some of those things are on tape, 
but I can't conceive of them basically cutting somebody off, 
unless they're rattling on for like 20 minutes and being 
redundant . 

MS. McGILL: The second sentence in response to a 
question, they will cut off. And the transcripts indicate that 
none of the issues for suitability are discussed. In other 
words, there are eight points of suitability. And in the 
hearing, primarily it's the unsuitability factors that are 
discussed. 

And if you have an inmate that can earn $50,000 a 
year with a job offer in his file, he has 115s, no disciplinary 
action. He has a place to stay. He meets all the suitability 
factors, and is still denied parole, and denied parole because 
he is told he is not job-skill trained. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you could get us that 
information, we'll get it to them. I'd like to have an 
answer. 

MS. McGILL: What would you like? 



54 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess what you're talking 
about . 

MS. McGILL: You want the transcript? Do you 
want -- of the hearing? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would like to afterwards, 
maybe you can get together with Nettie Sabelhaus and go over 
that. 

I mean, if a guy's got a job offer, 50 grand, and 
he's not job suitable, there's something wrong somewhere. 

MS. McGILL: And I find that to be true. And 
especially, he was denied parole because they said that the 
psych report was invalid. He had a positive psych report that 
said that he had no psychological problems. 

And then, why would he be told that, because he 
had a stable social history, his risk on the outside couldn't be 
determined? I mean, does he need to have a negative social 
history in order to prove that he is now good? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can get it afterwards, 
Ma' am. 

MS. McGILL: Yes, thank you. 

MS. TAYLOR: Good morning, Mr. Chair, other 
Senators. I'm Wendy Taylor, and I'm here for the California 
Attorneys for Criminal Justice. 

Rowan Kline, who represented Robert Rosenkrantz 
in his parole hearing, wanted to be here, but unfortunately, 
he's out of the country. So he has asked me to relay some 
information to you. 

Two years ago, Senator Polanco held a joint 



55 

hearing, and former Chairman Nielsen participated in those 
hearings. And he agreed to improve the process regarding lifer 
hearings . 

Mr. Hepburn to date has given no indication that 
he's even willing to discuss the improvements that were 
discussed in that joint hearing. 

The Rosenkrantz decision, which ordered a parole 
date, is now final. In that decision, it requires important 
changes in Board regulations and policy. Mr. Kline and Donald 
Spector, who is of the Prison Law Office, have suggested changes 
through Senator Burton's office, and so far have been 
unsuccessful . 

Mr. Kline has also offered procedural proposals 
to improve the system without any indication from this Board or 
this Chairman that they would even discuss those proposals. 

Mr. Kline says that Ms. Sabelhaus has all the 
correspondence that has been going back and forth. 

And for those reasons, CACJ and Mr. Kline 
personally oppose the confirmation of Mr. Hepburn. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses. 

MS. GUILLEN: Good afternoon, Senators, and men 
and women in the audience. 

My name is Kathleen Guillen, and I am — 
actually, I'm here — I'm the wife of a person who has served a 
seven to life sentence, and he is now in his 28th year of 
incarceration . 

I hesitate to give my name solely on the fact 
that my experience has been that retaliation is something that 



56 

is prevalent among in Commissioners that I've experienced. And 
I have great concern in that my husband will be reviewed within 
the next two weeks. 

However, with that in mind, I think it's critical 
and crucial that somebody stand up and put a face to the names 
and the numbers of people who come before the Board. 

I've prepared many different questions. 
Although, after listening, have come up with several more. I'll 
try to be brief and succinct. 

Something that is just appalling to me that 
continues to run through my mind is, in Mr. Hepburn's response 
to the question of, what is his primary issue of concern, 
stating specifically that a person is disciplinary free in his 
history of incarceration. 

My question is specifically, in terms of the word 
or the concept of redemption and forgiveness, what I'd like to 
know is, in Mr. Hepburn's view, when has a murderer achieved 
enough, quote-unquote, brownie points to be found suitable, and 
is redemption possible in your opinion? 

That's something that is certainly a paramount 
issue among the Board members historically. I'd like to hear an 
answer to that, if at all possible. 

Secondly, I'd like to know, what would you do to 
change the composition of the Board, in that being the Chairman 
is significantly a power position? 

And with that in mind, along with the previous 
discussion of Penal Code 5075, it states clearly by law that the 
Board is required to represent a cross-section of society 



57 

demographically/ socio-economically, gender, educators, public 
health providers. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Only the Governor can do that, 
Ma ' am . 

MS. GUILLEN: Thank you. 

I'm very — I have a lot of information. I'll be 
a little more concise. 

But clearly, we all know here in this room what 
Penal Code 5075 states. And I'd like to know how, indeed, can 
one have a Board that is fair and impartial without adhering to 
that law. 

Another statement that is blatantly ignored and 
incorrect is, the comment that — I believe Senator Lewis had 
asked something, and phrased it in terms of something to the 
effect of early release. Meaning that nobody is — nobody comes 
before the Board in an early release situation. 

And to correct that, certainly that is not the 
case with my situation, nor is it the case with hundreds of 
people that I know of. 

As of last year, I attended the January 29th, the 
Prison Construction Meeting in 1999, and as of that time, I'm 
under the impression that 513 lifers who have done over 20 years 
in the State of California are still incarcerated. And those 
are people who've done them above and beyond the time that they 
were required to do. 

I contest that the matrix is nonexistent. It is 
a format. It is a figure that is calculated and is strictly on 
paper. 



58 

There's so much. 

The other question I have, given that the 
Governor has made his beliefs regarding no parole for convicted 
murderers very clear, I'd like to know what, indeed, will 
Mr. Hepburn do should he come before the decision of going 
against one of his two bosses, his other boss, of course, being 
the Chair of this particular Committee? 

I'd also like to pose the question and have other 
Senators who are here look into this, and if you want more 
information about this movement, I will certainly provide it for 
you, but I'd like to know if the Commissioner even knows what 
the definition of the words "restorative justice" means. And 
in your opinion, is restorative justice a viable and valuable 
alternative to incarceration? 

I'm appalled at the comment that the Board 
arrives and reviews the inmate's file for approximately an hour, 
and at the extent, perhaps four to five days prior. 

To reiterate Senator Burton's response or comment 
or outrage, how can you fully review an inmate's C-file, and 
when you have somebody like my husband, who has 20 years of 
solid education, and programming, and outstanding behavior, how 
could you possibly look at a file that was many inches, if not 
many files itself, within an hour, and clearly, with good 
conscience, state that you have that human being's life and 
freedom in your best interest? That's just absolutely appalling 
to me . 

Lastly, and I will just say briefly, with this 
particular situation, of course, I have an agenda, but I also 



59 

1 have friends , and loved ones, and family that I have met 

2 throughout my experience with the California Department of 

3 Corrections. 

4 I was of service to the California Department of 

5 Corrections and other institutions for twelve years, bringing 

6 service and groups into juvenile halls, CYA, halfway houses, et 

7 cetera, twelve years prior to my becoming involved with my 

8 husband. 

9 My question is this. For a person who has come 

10 from a fifth grade education to now have — be an internship shy 

11 of a Master's in psychology, has a triple Bachelor's in 

12 behavioral science, who has laudatory, copious laudatory chronos 

13 that state that he has been an active and involved participant 

14 consistently for 18 years in Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics 

15 Anonymous, who is a spiritual elder in his community, and who 

16 has — actually was one of the founders of the ROCK Program, 

17 which was designed for — it specifies the acronym is Reaching 

18 Out Convicts and Kids, and this is an award-winning program that 

19 has been in effect for many years. 

20 How is it that you can say that that individual 

21 is lacking in educational skills? Is lacking in job offers? Is 

22 lacking in community support? 

23 I put that to the Board and to the Commissioners 

24 and the Senators in front of me, and I ask that you strongly 

25 consider what I've mentioned. 

26 Thank you. 

27 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you like to comment? 

28 MR. HEPBURN: No, I have no comment. 



60 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you familiar with the case 
she's talking about? 

MR. HEPBURN: No, I'm not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to get familiar out 
of curiosity? 

MR. HEPBURN: I am curious about the facts, and 
apparently it's pending in a couple of weeks. I could very well 
be on that panel. 

MS. GUILLEN: This is correct. Part of my 
concern about mentioning my name. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's all right. If he really 
was that type of person, he could probably try to figure it out. 
At least you've now alerted him and alerted us to the facts in 
this. He's alert to some facts, and there you have it. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Moved by Senator Lewis. Call 



the roll. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No. 



61 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton No. Four to one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Inspector General for the 
Veterans Affairs. 

Welcome. 

MR. HANSEN: Senator Burton, Senators, Members/ 
ladies and gentlemen, I'm Jerry Hansen, here today seeking 
confirmation as Inspector General for Veterans Affairs. 

My background includes over 30 years of military 
service. I retired from the Army in 1997 as a Colonel. My 
military service includes troop assignments in the U.S., 
Vietnam, and Germany; staff assignments at the Pentagon. 

My last five years of active service were spent 
as the Inspector General for the California Military Department, 
following attendance at the Army's Inspector General Course. 

Retiring in '97, I began working for the state as 
one of the first Deputy Inspectors General with the Youth and 
Adult Correctional Agency, where I wrote policies and 
procedures, conducted investigations, and ran the new program of 
management review audits for wardens and superintendents. 

After the Legislature and the Governor created 
the position of Inspector General for Veterans Affairs, I moved 
into that position in January of this year. My charter includes 
reviewing the operations and financial conditions of the State 
Veterans Homes, the Cal-Vet Loan Program, and other programs 
supported by the state, other veterans programs. 

I was also asked to co-chair the newly created 
Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Veterans Homes. 

Operationally, I support the Secretary of 



62 

1 Veterans Affairs, and I receive guidance from the Governor's 

2 Office. 

3 The first priority for my time has been the 

4 Veterans Homes, especially Barstow, and especially quality of 

5 care issues. Since January, I've made 13 trips to Barstow. 

6 I've observed two Department of Health Services surveys, and the 
annual U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs inspection. 

8 In May, I participated with DHS in investigations 

9 at the Home involving complaints of misconduct surrounding the 

10 deaths of several residents. Since those investigations 

11 continue, I will not be able to address the specific outcomes at 

12 this time. 

13 My charter includes providing on going advice and 

14 assistance to the California Veterans Board, which meets 

15 monthly — I have attended four of their meetings — as well as 

16 participating in numerous off-line discussions of issues. 

17 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your budget? 

18 MR. HANSEN: My budget with the new Governor's 

19 budget is $605,000. 

20 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know how many people are 

21 there? 

22 MR. HANSEN: That would be three staff members 

23 and a temporary health blanket for retired annuitants of 

24 90,000. 

2 5 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is that enough to do what you 

2 6 have to do? 

27 MR. HANSEN: I don't believe that it is, but I do 

28 believe that I'll be able to document workload this year so that 



63 

in the new budget submission, I'll be able to request what's a 
reasonable figure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Didn't some more people die up 
in Barstow recently? 

MR. HANSEN: There was another recent citation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Death. Somebody died. Let's 
call it a death, not a citation. Citation's a horse. 

How many people died? Somebody said like two or 
three just recently. 

Do you know, Pete? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Not recently. I think there's 
only with three at the most. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Total? What's the most recent 
death that you know of. 

MR. HANSEN: In May. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, there hasn't 
been one since the last one. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Not that I know of. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Bad information I'm getting. 

Tell me, there were concerns made during the late 
lamented hearings of the person who didn't quite make it as 
Director about the Cal-Vet program, and the fact that there were 
a lot of people that might end up losing — which was it? The 
life insurance program? 

Are you familiar with that problem? 

MR. HANSEN: I'm familiar with the problem, yes, 
Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you looking at it? You got 



64 

recommendations? 

MR. HANSEN: Yes, I've attended some hearings. 
I'm not at the point where I'm ready to make a recommendation 
yet. It's a pretty complex problem, and I'm not sure I have the 
solution yet. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I mean, tempest fugit on 
that one, because there's some people who will end up losing 
their life insurance, or end up seeing a great stubble. You 
can't kind of shilly-shally with recommendations on that. 

MR. HANSEN: I agree. It's something that has 
had, quite frankly, a second priority to the Veterans Homes, and 
some of the deaths that we've discussed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, we're aware of the 
problems there. Everybody's aware of that. 

And, I mean, the Governor's solution, which may 
not be a bad one, and I don't know if he shared this with you, 
Senator Knight, but to change Barstow to a more domiciliary 
situation, and make Chula Vista, or some other Veterans Home — 
because they're having trouble getting competent doctors and 
staff down there for some reason. The 120 degree heat is not 
made up for by the $70,000 salaries. 

So, one of the things that the Governor has at 
least discussed with me or mentioned to me was changing the 
nature of that, and then moving the hospital-type care to areas 
that'd be easier to get full staffing. 

I would hope you would put somebody immediately 
on that life insurance thing because that's like, you know, 
happening. They're all happening immediately, but that's one 



65 

that really we have to deal with, I think, even quicker in a way 
than the Veterans Homes. Because the Veterans Homes, they're 
ongoing and long, but this is one, the problem's going to be 
there. 

Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Without going into detail, 
because I know that would be inappropriate, can you just tell me 
at this point in time, are you investigating any allegations of 
misconduct against the former Secretary Alvarado? 

MR. HANSEN: I am investigating a number of 
issues, including personnel issues. Those could reflect further 
on against the former Secretary, but none with him specifically 
as the subject. 

SENATOR LEWIS: My second question dealt with 
personnel issues. You answered that as well. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it'd be improper to answer 
as to him, or you're not looking at him? 

MR. HANSEN: It would be premature to answer as 
to him, Senator. We're looking at everything right now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It may or may not include him? 

MR. HANSEN: We're going to look at everything, 
senator. If it includes him, we'll go that far. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where were you stationed in 



Germany? 



River. 



MR. HANSEN: In Neu Ulm, which is on the Danube 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Colonel Knight. 



66 

SENATOR KNIGHT: The allegations and 
investigations that have been going on at Barstow, can you give 

3 me kind of a status of are they coming to fruition? 

4 In looking at some of the citations, most of them 

5 were administrative, or a lot of them were administrative. And, 

6 of course, they're going to take a plan by the Director at the 

7 Home, in order to implement a plan. 

8 Is that coming along? Everytime I turn around, 

9 there's a new group going to Barstow, and we've got a new 

10 administrator there, and I'd like him to be able to formulate 

11 his plans, get settled down, and correct the discrepancies, and 

12 get on with it, as opposed to entertaining investigators day-in 

13 and day-out. 

14 MR. HANSEN: That's a valid concern, Senator. I 

15 believe we've made a lot of progress in that area. I don't 

16 think we've completely resolved all the issues. 

17 We're still looking for a full-time permanent 

18 Director of Nursing, which is certainly a key position in any 

19 skilled nursing facility, and we're still going through the 

20 process also to bring a licensed administrator specifically for 

21 the skilled nursing facility who would work for the overall Home 

22 administrator. 

23 With those two key positions filled, I believe 

24 that we would have the majority of the problems that have been 

25 identified and addressed in subsequent investigations and 

26 surveys resolved as far as the infrastructure is concerned. 

27 They've made a lot of progress in policies and 

28 procedures, and we're bringing on more staff now with the 



67 

Governor's budget. So, I'm not prepared to say that it's all 
behind us . 

We still have a few challenges ahead, but I think 
we've made a significant amount of progress. And that if we can 
fill those two key positions soon, then I think — along with 
possibly downsizing the size of the skilled nursing facility, 
we're also looking at that, 180-bed nursing facility in a remote 
location is a very difficult challenge. 

And I think if we could bring that down to a more 
reasonable size, that that would also make maintenance of 
standards much more achievable. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Now that Chula Vista is open, it 
is almost at the back door of a hospital. Would that be an 
appropriate place to move the nursing care, and make Barstow 
more domicilial? 

MR. HANSEN: Certainly, that would be an 
appropriate place, and that's being considered. There is some 
linkage between the certification of the skilled nursing 
facility at Barstow and any other homes operated by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: What do you mean? 

MR. HANSEN: Well, typically if DHS withdraws 
certification as the agent for health care financing 
administration from one home, they also look at the licensee 
overall in all their other homes. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Are you suggesting that you pull 
all of the nursing care facilities out of Barstow? Is that what 
you're looking at? 



MR. HANSEN: I would say that we're really 
looking at everything, although that would certainly not be my 
preferred option. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: But that's what you were just 
suggesting, I think; wasn't it? You said there was going to be 
a de-licensing. 

MR. HANSEN: No. There's currently been a 
de-certification by health care financing. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: That's because of the 
investigations; right? 

MR. HANSEN: Correct. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And once the investigations are 
complete, or there is a plan to correct, that should be lifted; 
shouldn't it? Or reinstated? 

MR. HANSEN: I would hope so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The concern, and I think this 
would really be more, in many ways, coming from the Governor, 
you may want, at some time, talk with him. 

As I said, the main concern that he had down 
there, I don't know at what level between like domiciliary care 
versus skilled nursing home, but they're just having real 
trouble getting top qualified people to be there. And he's 
trying to figure out what to do. 

I think that if you have any ideas, he'd probably 
be happy to have the input, because I think he's searching 
around. But I think that's really going to be a decision that 
he's going to make more than anyone else. If you've got some 
ideas, I'm sure he'd be happy, because he's sort of thrashing 



69 



around, looking for them. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here, 



sir? 



MR. HANSEN: Well, I would just — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here, 



sir? 



MR. HANSEN: Yes, my wife, Anna, and my veterans 
and Army family as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There you go. So, you think 
he's all right, do you? 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's he got on you? 
[Laughter. ] 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: He doesn't have anything on 
me. I'm commander of my post. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, sir. 

Any witnesses in opposition? Hearing none, moved 
by Colonel Knight, Colonel to Colonel. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 



70 



SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, sir. 
MR. HANSEN: Thank you, sir. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 12:02 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



71 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



3. 



day of f y 4yQu^^t^T 2000. 





-•EVELYN J. MTZAKJ 
"lorthand "Reporter 



406-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 406-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA n ~ n , lhAr _ 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP - 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




LeAtif*^""- 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2000 
3:48 P.M. 



407-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 



ROOM 3191 



SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2 000 



3:48 P.M, 



Reported by- 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK O'CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 

FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 

ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

E. LYNN BROWN, Member 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 

JACK D. COX, Member 

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 

ODESSA P. JOHNSON, Member 

Regents of the University of California 

ALLEN M. LAWRENCE, Member 
California Transportation Commission 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 

MEL ASSAGAI 

California Trucking Association 



3 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 

10 
11 
12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 



26 

27 
28 



ill 



MERLE C. RABINE, Member 

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 

SENATOR JOSEPH DUNN 

MARC MARCUS 

California Applicant Attorneys Association 

CARL BRAKENSIEK 

California Society of Industrial Medicine & Surgery 

ROBERTA ACHTENBURG, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

SENATOR JACKIE SPEIER 

CHARLES B. REED, Chancellor 
California State University 

MURRAY L. GALINSON, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

SHAILESH J. MEHTA, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

SENATOR DON PERATA 

MICHAEL V. ABBOTT, Program Administrator 

Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education 

GARY COOPER California Association of Schools of Cosmetology 

RON TOM 

University of Phoenix 

Devry University 

RICHARD BOYER 

Former President of a Regulated University 

JIM EDWARDS 

California Association for Schools of Cosmetology 

GARY FEDERICO 

California Association for Schools of Cosmetology 



IV 



TERENCE McHALE 

Aaron Read and Associates 

BOB SMITH 

Higher Education Law Project 



V 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

E. LYNN BROWN, Member 

Alcoholic Beverages Control Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Motion to Confirm 2 

Committee Action 2 

JACK D. COX, Member 

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 2 

Background and Experience 3 

Witness in Support: 

SENATOR BETTY KARNETTE 4 

Motion to Confirm 5 

Committee Action 5 

ODESSA P. JOHNSON, Member 

The Regents of the University of California 5 

Background and Experience 6 

Motion to Confirm 7 

Committee Action 7 

ALLEN M. LAWRENCE, Member 

California Transportation Commission 7 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 7 

Background and Experience 8 



4 

5 

b 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
2? 
26 
27 
28 



Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Role of Local Governments to the 

TCRF 8 

Expiration of Local Sales Taxes 9 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Prioritizing Projects from 

Safety Standpoint .10 

Witness in Support: 

MEL ASSAGAI 

California Trucking Association .11 

Motion to Confirm 12 

Committee Action 12 

MERLE C. RABINE, Member 

Workers Compensation Appeals Board 12 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR JOSEPH DUNN 13 

Background and Experience 14 

Witnesses in Support: 

MARC MARCUS 

California Applicant Attorneys Association 14 

CARL BRAKENSIEK 

California Society of Industrial 

Medicine and Surgery . 14 

Motion to Confirm 15 

Committee Action 15 

ROBERTA ACHTENBERG, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 15 

Background and Experience 16 



Vll 



Witness in Support: 

SENATOR JACKIE SPEIER 17 

Questions by SENATOR O'CONNELL re: 

Potential Gender Discrimination in 

Newly Instituted Merit Pay 19 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Redirection Policy 20 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Change from State College to 

State University 22 

Response by CHANCELLOR REED 23 

Motion to Confirm 24 

Committee Action 24 

MURRAY L. GALINSON, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 24 

Background and Experience 24 

Motion to Confirm 26 

Committee Action 27 

SAILESH J. MEHTA, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 27 

Introduction and Support by 

SENATOR DON PERATA 27 

Background and Experience 28 

Motion to Confirm 30 

Committee Action 3 



3 

4 

5 

h 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

i: 

13 

14 
15 

16 

17 
18 
19 

20 
21 

22 

23 
24 

25 
26 
27 



VI] 



MICHAEL V. ABBOTT, Program Administrator 

Bureau for Private Postsecondary and . 

Vocational Education 30 



Background and Experience 30 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 



Cooperation of Attorney General's 

Office with Legal Problems 38 

Lack of Acknowledgement for Receipt of 

Complaint 39 

Witnesses in Support: 

SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO 41 

GARY COOPER 

California Association of Schools of 

Cosmetology 42 

RON TOM 

University of Phoenix 

Devry University 42 

RICK BOYER 

Former University President 43 

JIM EDWARDS, Co-Founder 

California Association of Schools of 

Cosmetology 43 

GARY FEDERICO 

California Association of Schools of 

Cosmetology 43 

TERRY MCHALE 

Aaron Read and Associates 44 

Witness in Opposition: 

BOB SMITH 

Higher Education Law Project 45 

Response by MR. ABBOTT 48 






IX 



Further Response by MR. FEDERICO 49 

Rebuttal by MR . SMITH 49 

Rebuttal by MR. ABBOTT 50 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Approval Process 51 

Legislative Committees with Oversight 52 

Need for Intra-agency Cooperation 53 

Motion to Confirm 55 

Committee Action 55 

Termination of Proceedings 55 

Certificate of Reporter 56 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — • 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: E. Lynn Brown, Member, ABC 



Board. 



MR. BROWN: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead, sir. Do you have 
something to say? 

You're here to be confirmed for a member of the 
ABC Board. Do you want to give your qualifications? 

MR. BROWN: All right. 

I am E. Lynn Brown, and I happen to be the 
presiding President of the Ninth Episcopal District of the 
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, which covers Alaska, 
Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and 
Washington. My base, of course, is in California, and my 
residence is in Los Angeles. 

And I am originally a country boy from Tennessee. 
Of course, I was elected Bishop and sent to the west coast. 
Graduate of Lane College; graduate of ITC in Atlanta, Georgia; 
graduate of McCormick in Chicago. 

And I feel that I am ultimately qualified in that 
I am interested in holistic ministry. And when you're 
interested in holistic ministry, that means you dive off into 
any labyrinth, including alcohol beverages, because I feel that 
I can be a lot of help in that area. So, I think I'm imminently 
qualified. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I don't have any questions. 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to move the nomination, 
If there's no objection. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition to 
this gentleman? 

Do you have any family here with you, sir? 

MR. BROWN: My wife is here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to introduce her? 

MR. BROWN: Yes, my distinguished honorable 
Chairperson, let me present to you the apple of my eye and th 
quintessence of beauty, Gladys Deloris Stephens Brown. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Three to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'll hold the roll open on 
all matters for Senator Lewis. 

Thank you, sir, and congratulations. 

MR. BROWN: Thank you. All of you, thank you. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR LEWIS added 
his Aye vote, making the final 
vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Jack Cox. Mr. Cox is 
nominated for the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. 

Do you have a statement? 

MR. COX: Yes, sir. 

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Jack Cox, 
and I am seeking confirmation as a member of the California 
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. I was appointed to this 
position on March 10th of this year. 

As you know, the Appeals Board is responsible for 
conducting hearings and issuing decisions regarding claims for 
unemployment and disability benefits, and employment tax 
matters. The initial hearings and decisions are heard in eleven 
Offices of Appeals throughout the state. The losing party may 
appeal to the second level, which is the Appeals Board. 

In the fiscal year ending June, 2000, the Office 
of Appeals heard and decided 205,388 cases. The Appeals Board 
reviewed and issued 13,419 decisions. 

While the state's unemployment rate continues to 
be low, our figures indicate the agency's workload is actually a 
little higher than last year's. 

My professional background has been as a member 
and official of organized labor for the past 38 years. I bring 
a working person's perspective to the Board. I believe this 
perspective is valuable not only in the individual cases I 
decide, but also when working with the other Board members in 
discussing and deciding agency policies. 

I thank you for your consideration. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR LEWIS: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you here to introduce 
Mr. Cox, Senator Karnette? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Right. 

I just wanted to say he's a good friend of mine. 
I've worked with him many years. He's great. 

I encourage you to endorse him. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: That takes care of that. I'm 









today, Jack? 



voting no. 

[Laughter. ] 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: I could have told her. 
Pete, do you have any questions? 
SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 
SENATOR HUGHES: No questions. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family with you 

MR. COX: Just my family, my son and my wife. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you like to introduce 
them? 

MR. COX: If it's permissible. I won't take too 
much of your time. 

The lady standing in the rear is my wife, and the 
gentleman standing to her left is my son, John Cox. 

Thank you very kindly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Jack, stay for awhile. We've 
got to get a vote here. 

MR. COX: I want to kiss this lady, if you don't 
mind? 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: In front of your wife? 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

Moved by Senator Hughes. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Jack. 

MR. COX: Thank you, sir. Thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I just wanted Mrs. Cox to know, 
I'll take care of Ms. Karnette later. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Odessa Johnson, Member, 
Regents, University of California. 

I guess you were in just for a short term? 

MS. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. 

I'd like to just address you briefly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. 

MS. JOHNSON: I just wanted to say — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You did a good job during that 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



time. 

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. I should let this go 
while I'm ahead; right? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's one school of thought. 
[Laughter. ] 

MS. JOHNSON: Maybe I'll just say thank you for 
opportunity to appear before you again. I was here in January, 
and since that time, I've certainly made myself quite visible in 
the Valley and throughout the State of California. 

I've enjoyed every minute of it. I've been there 
for students, staff, and members of the community. 

I look forward to the next twelve years serving 
this great University, the best, I think, in the whole United 
States . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did we take care of Ernie's 
degree yet? 

MS. JOHNSON: You've got to work on it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'll surprise him. 

MS. JOHNSON: We've got it. We have it planned. 
You just have to work on him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'll have him come for 
something else. 

MS. JOHNSON: Yes, you just do it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any questions, Members of the 
Committee? 

Do you have any family here with you? 

MS. JOHNSON: My brother's here, James Peterson 
from Sacramento. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Allen Lawrence, member of the 



CTC. 



SENATOR POLANCO: Mr. Chairman, with permission 
of the Chair, I'd like to introduce our nominee. 

Allen Lawrence and I have known each other for 
the last 22 years. I've known him before I was elected. He's 
known me as long. 

He is a businessman in the San Fernando Valley 
area, well respected. One of Governor Davis' first appointees, 
early appointees, to the Transportation Commission. 

His business is in the insurance, primarily in 
the trucking area. Is well respected and well known, and I 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 






8 

would ask that we move his nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Senator. 

MR. LAWRENCE: Well, it's an honor and a 
privilege, Senator Burton and Senators, to come before you in 
front of the Rules Committee today. 

In the short time I have been on the California 
Transportation Commission, I've enjoyed it immensely. I think 
it's a wonderful opportunity for me to do good work for the 
people of California in public service. 

And I think that as far as I'm concerned, the 
California Transportation Commission is really an important 
position because transportation in California really affects 
everything. It affects the economy; it affects recreation; it 
affects the quality of life. So, the decisions that we make on 
the Commission certainly have great impact to all of the 
citizens of California. 

I just really appreciate the opportunity to be 
here today. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have you given any 
consideration to what role local governments can or should play 
with regard to their financing responsibilities to the TCRF? 

MR. LAWRENCE: Senator, the TCRF provides over $7 
billion, or close to $7 billion, over the next six years, of 
which just under 5 billion is for 141 specified projects. And 
for each project, a designated applicant — be it Caltrans or a 
local agency — must assemble sufficient additional funds to 
complete the project. 

Funding sources can come from the regional and 



interregional portions of the STIP, from federal funds, and from 
local funds. And the assemblage will vary project by project. 

Of the remaining $2 billion provided by the TCRF, 
most will be controlled locally, be it $400 million off the top 
for local streets and roads, or the 40-40-20 percent split of 
remaining funds for the STIP, local streets and roads and the 
public transportation account. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any ideas, has the 
Commission given any thought to how the state's going to address 
the expiration of local sales taxes that are going to expire? I 
think Alameda goes off this year, and then there's going to be 
several of the self-help county sales taxes for transportation 
going off. 

MR. LAWRENCE: Sure. This is a very serious 
problem. And I think Alameda comes off first in 2002, along 
with San Benito. And Alameda has a ballot initiative this 
November. So, hopefully the public will grasp the importance of 
approving that ballot initiative. 

But I think that local transportation sale taxes 
have been a key element in transportation investment over the 
past decade. They have been relied upon not just for capital 
projects, but for basic operations for both transit and local 
streets and roads. 

Of the current local sale taxes, as I mentioned 
before, Alameda expires in 2002, and its renewal is on the 
ballot in November, so we have a short window of opportunity to 
address is the 16 counties that have sales tax. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have the thing there, 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 






10 

Allen, where, after San Benito and Alameda, what's the next? 

MR. LAWRENCE: I'm not sure, Senator. I can 
check with staff. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We can find that out, too. 

MR. LAWRENCE: But I think as far as the 
Commission itself is concerned, we don't have any magical 
solution to this problem. We know it's a very serious problem, 
and I think we have a short window of opportunity to deal with 
it. And I think, really, it's up to the Legislature and the 
Governor to work together to find the solution to that problem. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Is there any mechanism by which we can evaluate 
projects from a safety standpoint, looking at roads that 
developed unsafe conditions? Can we move those projects farther 
along? 

MR. LAWRENCE: I know Cal trans has, I believe, 
addressed safety issues in their shop, the 2000 Shop that was 
just approved. And I believe that there's a significant portion 
of funding that is available for the safety issues. And that 
has become a much more — of greater paramount importance in 
Caltrans as it has been presented to the Commission. 

As far as what specifically can be done to 
monitor this, I would have to get back to you on that, Senator 
Knight . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I'm not so much concerned about 
the center dividers, or guardrails, or things like that, but 



11 

- 

basic projects in terms of widening a -road, a whole stretch of 
highway that has become a death trap for various motorists. 

MR. LAWRENCE: Yes, and I think I probably know 
some of those highways that you're referring to. And I have 
grave concern about them as well. Senator. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I was just wondering if there is 
some way that we can increase the priority based on safety? Is 
there a mechanism, or is there a condition that you can evaluate 
from a safety standpoint and say, that then has a higher 
priority? 

MR. LAWRENCE: That's an excellent question, and 
I think it's one that I would be most happy to get back to you 
in writing on, Senator. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Any further questions? 

Any support witnesses wish to come forward at 
this time? 

MR. ASSAGAI: Mel Assagai for the California 
Trucking Association. 

The California Trucking association's very proud 
to offer very strong support for Mr. Lawrence. He is a member 
of the Trucking Association and someone knowledgeable in all 
areas of transportation. 

We urge your strong support. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Any other questions or any 
other support? 

Any opposition? 

Any family here you'd like to introduce? 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



12 

MR. LAWRENCE: No, I do not have any family here, 
but they're here in spirit, and they've all wished me well, 
thank you. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move it. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Moved by Senator Hughes. 
Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Three to zero. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Congratulations, 
Mr. Lawrence. Recommend to the Floor. 

MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: We'll leave the vote open for 
Senator Burton and for Senator Lewis. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR LEWIS and 
SENATOR BURTON added Aye votes, 
making the final vote 5-0 for 
confirmation. ] 

We'll now ask Merle Rabine to come forward. He's 
the appointee for the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. 

Welcome . 

Senator Dunn. 



13 

SENATOR DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll take 
only a brief moment here, because this individual, as you'll see 
from his record and from his own comments, speaks for himself. 

But it is my personal honor to introduce to the 
Committee and strongly support his nomination. He is an 
individual that is not only a at least former neighbor, a 
friend, but also an individual that comes out of the Orange 
County legal community, who, for the past 15 years, I have 
watched practice. And it is through those associations as a 
neighbor, as a friend, and as a fellow colleague in the legal 
profession in Orange County I come to speak very briefly on 
behalf of Merle. 

This is an individual who, when you look at 
issues such as intellect, professional talent, integrity, and 
perhaps most importantly for the position for which he has been 
nominated, fairness. All four apply to this individual in 
unmatched quantities. I think there is no one more deserving, 
who will more fulfill the duties that he would assume in 
accepting this position as Chair of the Workers Compensation 
Appeals Board than the individual sitting next to me, Merle 
Rabine. 

Again, I underscore that I recommend him with the 
highest, highest of emphasis from this individual who has come 
to know him over the years on a very personal basis. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thank you. 

Mr. Rabine. 

MR. RABINE: Thank you, Senator Dunn. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



14 

I'm an attorney. I've been in practice since 
1979. And from 1979 to April of this year, I represented 
injured workers in Workers Compensation cases. 

I was President of the California Applicant 
Attorneys Association in 1989. And Senator O'Connell will 
remember that, I think, when the first round of Workers 
Compensation reform went through, and was around for next 
rounds . 

Since I was appointed to the Appeals Board, I 
think I've been involved in deciding more than 700 cases. 

I'm very grateful for the people who have come 
forward to support me, and also pleased that, as far as I know, 
as of now, there's been no opposition. 

So, I'm pleased to be here. I'll be happy to 
answer any questions. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Questions of the Committee? 

Any support witnesses wish to come forward 
briefly? 

MR. MARCUS: Marc Marcus, California Applicant 
Attorneys Association. 

It's my privilege to support. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thank you. 

MR. BRAKENSIEK: Carl Brakensiek on behalf of 
California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery. 

I've known Merle for nearly 20 years, and what 
Senator Dunn said about him is absolutely correct. He's one of 
the most honorable and brilliant Workers Compensation attorneys 
I've ever met, and I heartily endorse him. 



15 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: That's a lot of experience. 
Any opposition wish to come forward at this time? 
Any of your family members? 
MR. RABINE: Yes, I'd like to introduce my wife, 



Leslie 



SENATOR O'CONNELL: What's the pleasure of the 
Committee? Senator Hughes moves. Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator O'Connell. 

CHAIRMAN O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Three to zero. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: We're going to keep it on 
call for Senator Burton and Senator Lewis. Congratulations. 

MR. RABINE: Thank you. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thank you very much, 
Mr. Rabine. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR LEWIS and 
SENATOR BURTON added Aye votes, 
making the final vote 5-0 for 
confirmation. ] 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Supervisor Achtenberg, come 
forward and move into the Trustees area. Welcome. 

MS. ACHTENBERG: Thank you, Senator. Good 
afternoon to all the Senators. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



16 

It's a real honor for me to be here before you. 
I'm the daughter of immigrant parents. They, who had no formal 
education, hungered for a better life for me and my sisters and 
brothers. They struggled economically to settle in Inglewood, 
California so that we might receive the best public education 
possible, and we did receive that education. 

They managed to send each of the four of us to 
the University of California at Berkeley, where we successfully 
matriculated, and three of us went on to graduate school. They 
gave us a gift of incalculable value, and the people of the 
State of California made a concommitant investment in us, which 
it is now my privilege to give back in part by being appointed 
and being allowed to serve, should you choose to confirm me, as 
a Trustee of the California State University system. 

The CSU is an integral part of California's 
remarkable, unique system of higher education, and it would be 
an extraordinary privilege for me to be allowed to serve. 

Members of this Committee understand quite well 
the challenges that the CSU faces over the next eight to ten 
years. Managing enrollment growth will be an enormous 
challenge, but I believe the administration of Chancellor Reed 
and the current Board of Trustees is absolutely up to the task. 
I will enjoy very much the opportunity to serve with them in 
helping to manage that enormous enrollment growth that we 
anticipate. 

Teacher preparation is the other major challenge 
that we face. The people of the State of California will depend 
enormously on the CSU to meet that challenge, and it will be my 






17 

privilege, should you allow me to serve as a Trustee, to help 
participate on the Board of Trustees to meet that challenge. 

Finally, remediation for our first — for our 
students who have received inadequate preparation in English and 
math will be the other significant challenge that we face. 
Again, it will be indeed my pleasure and my responsibility, 
should you allow me to serve as a Trustee, to help our system 
meet those major challenges. 

As you pointed out, Senator O'Connell, I have 
been County Supervisor. I have been a civil rights lawyer for 
more than 25 years. I have been HUD Assistant Secretary. I 
have served on the board of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San 
Francisco and other boards and commissions. 

It would indeed be an honor, a privilege, and a 
pleasure should you allow me to continue to serve as a Trustee 
of the CSU, and one that I would take enormously seriously, and 
work very diligently to discharge not only in my own behalf and 
behalf of my family and my community, but on behalf of the 
people of State of California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Speier. 

MS. ACHTENBERG: This is one of my two 
distinguished Senators. 

SENATOR SPEIER: Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm 
delighted to join with the Pro Tem in endorsing the appointment 
of Ms. Achtenberg. 

With the exception of one minor lapse of judgment 
in her entire political and professional career — 

MS. ACHTENBERG: More than one. 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He ain't here. 

SENATOR SPEIER: — she has shown herself to be 
just very professional, extraordinarily gifted, and just a fine 
legal mind. 

And while I know she skipped through her prepared 
statement, I read it very closely. It's very clear that she's 
already captured the essence of what the challenges are before 
our CSU system and will provide us, I believe, with outstanding 
guidance and leadership. 

And the fact that she has served on federal level 
and on the local level, and most recently with the Chamber of 
Commerce in San Francisco, shows that she is indeed versatile 
and can work with various entities and factions. 

So, I think she's an outstanding choice, and I 
wholeheartedly endorse her. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes — 

SENATOR HUGHES: Why'd you move out of my 
district? 

[Laughter.] 

MS. ACHTENBERG: Sorry. I loved every moment, 
though, living there, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Since you said you were sorry, 
I'll have to think about forgiving you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She went from the Castro Valley 
to Castro. 

SENATOR HUGHES: She was born in Inglewood. 






19 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR ' CONNELL : I hope you move into my 
area. 

The one heads-up I wanted to just raise is an 
issue that the faculty has raised recently, within the last 
month or so, or less than that, and brought to my attention, in 
terms of a study that has come out in terms of potential 
inequities in terms of the distribution of some of the revenue, 
the money that's administered locally by the college 
professors. 

That's an issue that the faculty has raised of 
potential gender discrimination, which I know you have fought 
your whole political life against. 

And for you and your two colleagues who will be 
succeeding you here, that's an issue I know that's very 
important to the faculty, many of us here, and you're going to 
be part of that solution, to make sure that, if there's a 
problem, it can be addressed, and to help address that on each 
campus. It varies widely, as I understand it. 

I've looked at this independent study, and just 
any additional information that you get, and help that get 
resolved would be, I think, in everyone's best interest. 

So, that's just my one heads-up comment. 

MS. ACHTENBERG: We are aware of the assertion 
that certain elements of the newly instituted merit pay system 
appear to favor men as compared to women. 

But I want to underscore, and it may be that the 
Chancellor will want to comment on this, but we are taking it 



20 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



very seriously. Our administration is looking into it. We are 
testing the assertion and would be happy to present this 
Committee with the results that we determine. 

But our preliminary assessment is that that 
perception may not be, in fact, the reality, but we don't have 
all the information yet. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thank you for being aware of 
that issue. 

MS. ACHTENBERG: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have a serious question now. 

CSU doesn't have any redirection policy for 
students who wants to gain entrance into the system. 

The UC system has a redirection policy. If you 
can't get into Berkeley, they say you can get into Santa 
Barbara, or you can get into Riverside, or something like that. 

Do you think, with the crowded number of 
applications for admissions to CSU, that your system should have 
something comparable to redirect, and not just discourage 
students and say to them, "The doors are closed to the campus of 
your choice." 

Have you thought about that? 

MS. ACHTENBERG: It's my understanding, Senator, 
that first priority in admission is given to otherwise qualified 
community college transfer students. Second priority is given 
to completely qualified students from the high schools who are 
seeking admission to CSU for the first time. 

And added to that is a local preference that we 
recently enacted that is particularly made available for — so 



21 

many of our students are place-bound/ • so that gives them a 
preference, should any one of the CSU campuses be impacted, 
meaning that they have more applications, qualified 
applications, than they can otherwise accommodate. 

So, to some extent we have addressed that, at 
least with regard to local students. Beyond that, I'm not 
familiar with whatever redirection policy might be appropriate. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, the thing that saddens me 
about this is that, all a student has to be is someone of meager 
means and is rejected. That may be the end of their quest for 
going to college. That bothers me. 

The mission of the CSU system is tremendous, and 
certainly they're well known for their teacher training program, 
and we need teachers. And they have other fine programs, too. 

And since we've done away with a lot of the 
special admissions programs and everything, I mean, it really 
bothers me to say that the CSU system is going to say, "Well, 
since you can't get into the campus of your choice," that these 
students may never, ever come back again. 

Does that bother you? 

MS. ACHTENBERG: It is bothers me. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Are you thinking about what you 
can do to solve that problem? 

MS. ACHTENBERG: I had not been thinking about it 
heretofore, but now that you have brought to my attention — 

SENATOR HUGHES: I knew you were good. You had 
good roots from Inglewood. 

I'm serious about that. I think it's very, very 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



22 

important that students not be turned. away early on. And 
especially if they're students of meager means. And they know 
that they have a CSU campus not too far from their home. This 
has probably been their ambition from the moment that they 
graduated from high school/ some day they would get into that 
institution. 

So, the UC system is a little bit more elitist. 
But even with their elitist attitude, they have a program that 
redirects . 

Do you feel that you want to take a leadership or 
instill in your fellow Trustees the opportunity to give these 
students some other recourse, not just to shut the door in their 
face? 

MS. ACHTENBERG: That's what the CSU is there 
for. So, to the extent that we don't have an adequate policy at 
this point, I absolutely will undertake the responsibility to 
look into this, to discuss it with our educational policy 
people, and to get back to you with what it is that we're doing. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have all of the confidence in 
the world in you, looking at your background, looking at your 
experience, that you will be the one to put the key in the door 
to unlock it so students know that the doors are not closed to 
them. 

MS. ACHTENBERG: I'll do the best I can do, 
Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you know, or maybe 
Chancellor Chuck would know, when they came from State College 



23 

to State University, what, besides fees going up and the 
letterhead, what changed? 

CHANCELLOR REED: Nothing changed, seriously. 

We have maintained open admissions for the top 
one-third of the California high school students. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It just basically allowed 
then-Governor Reagan to say he doubled the size of the 
university program? 

CHANCELLOR REED: But it was important to provide 
access that Senator Hughes just talked about. 

Senator Hughes, we do have a redirection 
program. But we have not had to use it except at Cal Poly San 
Luis Obispo. There, we have redirected students to Cal Poly 
Pomona, and it has worked very well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about Cal Poly San Dimas? 
There's no more Cal Poly San Dimas? 

CHANCELLOR REED: No more. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It became Pomona? 

CHANCELLOR REED: The Kellogg family helped with 
that. 

This past March, Senator Hughes, this Board 
really worked very hard to assure all of the students their 
choice of a local institution as first-time in college and 
community college transfer. 

I think we're going to be able to do that for the 
next three or four years, especially if we can move to year 
around operations. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Then there are plans in the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



24 

making, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you bring any family with 
you, Roberta? 

MS. ACHTENBERG: I didn't, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, moved by Senator Hughes. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight.. 
Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Roberta. 

MS. ACHTENBERG: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Murray Galinson. 

MR. GALINSON: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just to clarify the record, the 
the person sitting two over from you is not with you? 

MR. GALINSON: Well, she used to be a friend, 
Senator. A child by a previous marriage. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON? Go ahead. 

MR. GALINSON: Thank you for giving me the 
opportunity to speak to you today. I am very pleased to be here 



25 

and be appointed by the Governor for your confirmation to the 
California State University Board of Trustees. 

I might just say very quickly, and I know your 
time is short, that I am now in probably my fourth career as an 
adult. I practiced law for sometime; I taught law for sometime, 
and then I became a banker for a considerable amount of time. 
And now I'm in my fourth career, which I call semi-retirement. 

During this time, I am spending most of my time 
working with inner-city youth and inner-city education issues, 
in a philanthropic mode. Therefore, when the Governor asked if 
I would accept this appointment, I did so eagerly. And I'm 
pleased to be spending much of my time, I hope, in the next few 
years, working in this position. 

I'm a graduate of public high school, public 
university, and public law school, and know the importance of 
public education. California has for many years been a leader 
in this field, and I think the CSU system is critical in its 
role for California education, especially as it relates to 
teachers, qualified teachers, of the K-12 school system. 

I think one of the issues that I think we have to 
face is the continuing access to California's young people to 
universities. We all know about the numbers of students that 
are going to impact the schools, or affect the schools — I 
shouldn't use the word impact — affect the schools over the 
next few years, and I think it is very important for the CSU 
system to be working with these students to create qualified 
teachers for the K-12 system, qualified social workers, and 
people in other health fields, as well as our future business 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 

leaders . 

I really feel as a Trustee of the California 
State University system that I can make a difference for the 
young leaders of tomorrow, and I sincerely hope you will make 
that possible by recommending my appointment to the Senate. 

Thank you. 

I am waiting for the one question, to introduce 
my family, because I didn't want to usurp that issue. 

Besides my daughter from a previous marriage, I 
have my wife of 41 years almost, Elaine is here. And I have my 
daughter Laura, my son Jeffrey, and my daughters-in-law, 
Stephanie and Jane. 

We had to leave one son and his wife home in Los 
Angeles with their two and-a-half year old daughter and twins of 
six months. He felt he was a little busy. 

I didn't bring the grandchildren. There are 
seven of them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think Yvonne more than 
represents all those who are missing. 

Any witnesses in opposition? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 



27 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. GALINSON: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Shailesh Mehta, member, State 
University Trustees. 

Senator Perata. 

SENATOR PERATA: Thank you, President Burton, 
Members. 

It's an honor to be here this afternoon to 
present to you the nominee to the State College University 
system. 

By the way, two things have changed. Both San 
Francisco State and Hayward State dropped football, so it's 
obviously turning to crap. 

Mr. Mehta is the Chairman and Chief Executive 
officer of Providian Financial Corporation, which I am proud to 
say is headquartered in San Francisco, but has a large and 
growing presence in the East Bay in both Oakland and in 
Pleasanton. The corporation has 24 billion in assets, 13 
million customers, and 13, 000 employees, both in this country 
and abroad. As such, it provides consumer services. It is one 
of the largest, if not the largest, credit card company in the 
world. They actually gave me a card, so I'm very happy to be 
presenting Mr. Mehta. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



28 

In addition to the obvious thing, that he has 
just a wealth of experience in business, he is a possessor of a 
Doctorate in Computer Science. He also has aggressively used 
his experience, his business acumen, and his position within the 
financial community to donate lavishly his time and resources to 
education and the arts. 

And often times, political appointments such as 
these go to people who have a variety of past interests, and in 
the ones that we're hearing today, people have a very obvious 
interest in education and understanding how to make our higher 
system of education work. 

And Mr. Mehta could not be a better choice. He 
is a remarkable individual. I've known him for a short period 
of time, but his contribution to public education in my own 
community has been outstanding. 

So, I'm deeply honored to present him here this 
afternoon and encourage your affirmative vote. 

MR. MEHTA: Thank you, Senator and, thank you, 
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Rules Committee. 

I'm deeply honored to be here. I am myself a 
beneficiary of public education, and a very high quality public 
education, and a very affordable cost. 

In developing my own success, whatever I have 
personally and professionally, the education has played a 
significant role. 

When this nomination came about, I was delighted, 
because it will give me an opportunity to give something back. 

I have a very brief tenure with CSU, and I was 



29 

absolutely impressed. It's the largest state university system 
in the country, with 360,000 students and 23 campuses. I 
believe it's the backbone of California's higher education 
infrastructure . 

And I've observed its accomplishments and its 
administration. I'm very impressed. But while it has done the 
admirable job, it does face many challenges in the coming 
decade. Some of those my colleague, Robert Achtenberg, shared 
with you: the capacity challenge. We are expecting 130,000 new 
students in the coming decade, additional new students, what has 
been referred as Tidal Wave Two. 

We have a challenge of preparing teachers for 
K-12. The demand is enormous in the next ten years, and the 
knowledge base is growing to prepare our students in high school 
and for the new economy, new technology. 

And there is the issue of diversity. One thing, 
I was very impressed when I read that eight of the CSU campuses 
are among the top twenty most diverse universities in the 
country. It is 52 percent minority students. 

So, given those kind of numbers and statistics, I 
believe my experience as a CEO of a major corporation, my 
professional training, will be helpful to address some of these 
needs. I can assure you that I will work very hard and meet the 
expectations of this Committee, your Legislature, and 
administration to achieve some of those challenges in the most 
innovative and creative ways. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. Senator Hughes. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



30 



SENATOR HUGHES: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

Moved by Senator O'Connell. Call the roll. 

Do you have any family here? 

MR. MEHTA: Yes, sir. I have my wife. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 



SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR HUGHES 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR KNIGHT 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Senator Hughes. 
Aye. 

Hughes' Aye. Senator Knight. 
Aye. 

Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell 
SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MR. MEHTA: Thank you. 
SENATOR LEWIS: Next on the agenda is 
Mr. Michael Abbott. 

MR. ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, 
for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Let me start by saying that I appreciate the 
support of the Governor and DCA Director, Kathleen Hamilton, in 
my quest to turn a very troubled program around, and with the 
good grace of this Committee and the full Senate, I'll be able 
to continue in those activities. 






31 

In my brief remarks today, I want to outline the 
accomplishments we've made in the last nine months, which is the 
tenure that I've had so far with this program. I'd like to 
also outline some areas where we have not made the kind of 
progress that we all would like. And last, I want to point out 
some of the vagaries in the law and the regulations that we 
enforce that get in the way of our taking care of business, 
frankly. 

By way of personal background, let me say I bring 
25 years of public service to the position. I worked as a 
consultant to Senate B&P Committee and Assembly Consumer 
Protection and Education Committees. I've been a community 
college instructor, and I worked for ten years in the Department 
of Consumer Affairs prior to coming to the Legislature. 

By way of just very brief program description, 
the Bureau that I head is in charge of regulating some 3,000 
private proprietary schools that provide postsecondary degree 
and nondegree training to some 400,000 students up and down 
California. They are in three major categories. I started to 
mention degree granting and nondegree granting are, by far, the 
primary categories. About 1500 nondegree programs. About — 
excuse me, about 2,000 nondegree programs, and about 250-300 
degree programs. There are some other categories, such as 
registered programs that aren't as many in numbers. 

Let me outline some of the priorities and some of 
the accomplishments that we have undertaken since I took over 
this program at the very end of 1999. 

Upon looking at the program, which many of you 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



32 

know has been very controversial over. more than a decade, we 
looked at three -- we established three significant priorities. 
The first was to address and reduce the application backlog. 
Schools were not getting either their initial or their 
re-application documents processed as rapidly as possible, and 
that obviously is a difficult situation for small businesses and 
large businesses in this state. So, that was a high priority 
area and remains so. 

Enforcement is the second priority that we 
identified. The agency, frankly, had been slow to respond to 
the complaints of students and also complaints from schools, 
that their competition was operating without benefit of being 
licensed, and that that was problematic both for students and 
for businesses. 

Then the third area of priority that we 
identified was with regard to the Student Tuition Recovery Fun 
which is a safety net fund that is administered by this program, 
that compensates students for their tuition losses when schools 
go belly up, as it were, and students are left without recourse. 

The previous counsel and the predecessor agency 
to mine, as well as the first two years of the Bureau, had let a 
number of Student Tuition Recovery Fund cases languish, with the 
result that they turned into class action suits. And I was the 
lucky fellow who came along and found the responsibility to make 
that right on behalf of those students. 

When I brought this to the attention of the DCA 
Director, we determined rapidly that these were valid student 
complaints that needed to be addressed, and we have taken off on 






33 

that course. That in itself has created some consternation, but 
that was a high priority for us as well. 

In terms of eliminating the backlog, we have 
done, I think, we've done a very good job in several categories, 
and not so good a job in other categories. We've eliminated the 
backlog of applications with regard to degree granting 
institutions, and teachers certifications, registered 
institutions. 

Unfortunately, the backlog with regard to 
vocational or nondegree programs is still with us. 

The Legislature, in the course of adopting the 
budget, adopted budget control language that outlines — that we 
helped the Legislative Analyst develop — that outlines a 
program for us to not only address those workload backlogs, but 
also to report on a quarterly basis to the Legislature as to not 
only our progress with regard to the backlogs, but also student 
complaints and forth. We're being held to a very short leash, 
as it were, and appropriately so, in this program by the 
Legislature. 

I should also include that the Legislature has 
made this program subject to sunset review, so there's no lack 
of interest on the part of the Legislature, and no lack of 
accountability mechanisms that we're being held to with regard 
to this program. 

With regard to the all-important area of 
enforcement, we have resolved approximately -- I won't say 
resolved -- we have worked on and revived approximately 300 
student complaints that were on file and not being worked when I 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



34 

took over the position. Approximately half of those complaints 
have actually been resolved, presumably to the satisfaction of 
the students involved. The rest are in the works, pending 
either receipt of information, or tracking down who the 
complainants are, or something of that nature. But they all are 
being actively worked. None has escaped a phone call and/or a 
letter from our staff asking what the current status is, and 
exploring with both the student and the institution what they 
want us to do by way of solving their particular complaint. 

We also have renewed contacts and investigations 
with regard to so-called violator schools, which are schools 
that are operating, or allegedly operating, without the benefi 
of being licensed or approved, as our law says. We had 289 such 
complaints on hand when I took over the program. We are — 
these are difficult cases to work. We send contact letters. 
All of those complaints are being worked at present. We've sent 
contact letters to three quarters of those schools and found out 
that either they have closed, or we brought a few into the 
regulated fold, and we're working on the rest. We referred a 
few to the Division of Investigation of the Department of 
Consumer Affairs because they seem to be reluctant to respond to 
our overtures to get them into the regulated fold. 

We've also conducted several enforcement actions 
that go beyond complaint handling. We have denied the 
application, that is, put out of business, two massage therapy 
schools that were, in reality, fronts for other kinds of 
activities. We worked cooperatively with local law enforcement 
to do that. 






35 

Here in Sacramento, we. were able to get 
compliance on the part of a school that was teaching folks to be 
utility pole climbers. There's no end to the variation in this 
particular field. 

We have 15 investigations actively going with the 
Department of Consumer Affairs, Division of Investigation. 

And last I will say that we recently prevailed at 
the appellate court level in our efforts to close down a school 
that was proven to be a diploma mill. 

So, our priority has been to reassert the 
enforcement presence of this program. I think we've established 
a track record of doing that. 

I won't say that all of the student advocates or 
anybody else is entirely satisfied, nor am I, with the progress 
that we've made regarding enforcement or even the application 
fund, but we have made some significant steps in a relatively 
short period of time. 

The flip side of these achievements is that the 
well-documented problems that we inherited from the former 
counsel, many of those are still with us. We've, as I 
mentioned, we've eliminated backlogs in several categories, but 
the backlog of re-approval applications remains. Our processing 
of new applications for nondegree schools ranges between 90 and 
180 days, rather than the 90 days specified by statute. 

I want the Committee to understand that with 
regard to both new and re-approval applications, no business is 
significantly disadvantaged by our backlogs, because we do, 
within appropriate statutory timeframes, we do issue temporary 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



36 

permits, both to new and re-approval schools, so that they are 
not precluded from operating lawfully. And that was not the 
case, I believe, under the prior administration of this 
program. So, we are sensitive to the need for businesses to get 
up and running, and for the need for the need to the bureaucracy 
not to impose undue burden on those businesses. 

I mentioned that we worked out with Legislative 
Analyst a plan for reducing those backlogs. That plan includes 
making sure that we process on a first'-in, first-out basis. We 
process new applications within statutory timeframes, and 
re-approvals also within statutory timeframes, and then we, in a 1 
separate effort, take the next 18 months to go back and do the 
site visits associated with the pending re-approval 
applications . 

It's kind of a complicated plan, but Legislative 
Analyst and the Legislature, by virtue of the control language 
it adopted, feels that this is a credible plan, and it is 
achievable. 

I have just one more thing to add about the 
difficulty that the statute that we enforce imposes with regard 
to our program. 

I don't know how many of you really know the 
history of this program. It was created in 1989 by legislation 
carried by then-Assemblywoman Maxine Waters. It was reaffirmed 
in 1997 by Assemblyman Rod Wright's AB 71. That was a 
monumental and very controversial effort. 

And the resulting statute, the intent of the 
resulting statute was to create a drastically streamlined and 






37 

■ 

much more workable statute which would work to the benefit of 
schools, and the enforcement program, and us as program 
administrators . 

The fact is that it hasn't turned out that way. 
The law is extraordinarily convoluted and complicated, and much 
in needs of repair. And I would — while some of you may know 
what I'm proposing here is opening the flood gates to another AB 
71 discussion, and you may be reluctant to do that, I think it 
is absolutely necessary. Let me give "you just two very quick 
examples of how difficult this statute is before I close. 

The first example is that the re-approval 
provisions call for us to review renewal applications only to 
the extent that programs have changed. 

I'm sorry to go on like this, but there are lots 
of questions about this program, and I hope to answer them, or 
at least set the background so that the Committee understands. 

The new language in the statute calls for a very 
abbreviated re-approval process. The old language calls for us 
to put a re-approval application through essentially the same 
process that a new application goes through, which is an 
extraordinarily great level of scrutiny. 

The other statutory glitch — and obviously, this 
results in backlogs. Longer process, longer processing times. 

The other glitch in the statute that I would 
point out among very many is the fact that our fee schedule that 
we charge to our licensees is memorialized both in the 
statute -- has to be approved by the Legislature, in other 
words -- and, in the year after the Legislature approves it, we 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



38 

are required to adopt regulations that specify that fee 
schedule. 

The result is, even if the Legislature were to 
give us some additional help to try to address our backlogs, it 
would take two years before we'd have the authority to raise the 
revenue to do that. Obviously, that's a condition that 
contributes to our backlogs. 

There are many, many inconsistencies in the 
statute that are like this, and I would submit to you that we're 
doing the best job we can to enforce the law that we have, but 
we could greatly streamline this law, and we look forward to the 
help of the Legislature in doing that. 

With that, noting that the hour is late, I'll be 
happy to close and entertain your questions, however you want to 
proceed. 

Thank you for your indulgence. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Abbott, since you have been 
appointed, how many times have you worked with the AG's Office 
in asking their assistance to help you with all of these 
multitudinous legal problems, and how many times have they been 
responsive or nonresponsive? 

MR. ABBOTT: We have worked with the Attorney 
General's Office in several contexts. First of all, in the 
Student Tuition Recovery Fund area. There have been a couple of 
cases, and we've also consulted with the AG's Office on how best 



39 

to handle that. That's out of the San Francisco AG's Office. 

The AG's Office has also assisted us in pursuing 
several enforcement cases. 

In terms of how many times — 

SENATOR HUGHES: Roughly, no exact number. 

MR. ABBOTT: I don't know, a dozen. There have 
been numerous staff contacts between our attorneys and the 
Attorney Generals, Deputy AGs, but I would say that those are 
individual conversations. There 're probably 10 or 12 matters in 
general that we've worked with the AG's Office on. 

SENATOR HUGHES : We have gotten complaints from 
Legal Aid Foundation that many students had problems, and Legal 
Aid has referred them to your agencies, and they have not 
received any acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint. 

Is that in fact true? Or did some secretary or 
clerk drop the ball and did not acknowledge receipt of that 
complaint? 

MR. ABBOTT: Actually, Senator, I think in the 
past both things are true. I think in the past, in the two 
years that the Department of Consumer Affairs had the program 
before I took it over — 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, I mean as recently as 
February of this year. I don't mean — 

MR. ABBOTT: Now I understand your question. 

I'm not aware that we do not respond or to 
acknowledge complaints. However, I am aware of the issue that 
was raised with you. 

I'm particularly aware that the Bureau has had 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



40 

one case in which the attorney handling that case has been very 
diligent in pursuing that issue. And we have had difficulty in 
connecting back and forth -- some our fault; some 
inaccessibility on the part of the attorney — we had difficulty 
in providing information to the attorney who's handling those 
cases . 

I can tell you that I have reopened the case, as 
it were, to take a look at the more serious implications. Some 
of the complaints that students had, my understanding, most of 
the complaints were worked out amicably between the subject 
school and the students. There are two to three student 
complaints that my legal staff tells me are still in the works. 

And the larger issue that Legal Aid has raised of 
this particular school, that I don't feel comfortable 
mentioning, has engaged in persistent fraud and 

misrepresentation, and so forth. We're taking a renewed look at 
that. That case predates me a great deal, and it was not worked 
effectively, but we're taking a new look. Under my direction, 
we're taking a new look at that case. 

And I do believe, I will say, that I owe this 
particular staff attorney of Legal Aid of Los Angeles a personal 
apology, because when she has contacted me, I've made the 
mistake of referring the calls to staff, and staff does call 
back diligently and try to resolve those issues. 

I can understand how my failure to make that 
return phone call personally has been interpreted as negligence 
or inattention on my part. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I don't think that's the nature 






41 

of the complaint. I'm sure that anyone would realize that an 
agency as large as yours, you have numerous complaints. 

But is there a form letter, or some 
acknowledgement that this complaint has been received, and you 
are currently working on it? Is that the kind of thing? 

I'm not talking about what happened a year or two 
ago. I'm talking just months ago. 

MR. ABBOTT: I understand. Yes, there is such a 
process. Whether that process is applied as consistently and 
diligently as it ought to be is probably open to question. 

And I can assure you that we will do better in 
that regard. That's just not appropriate, to drop the ball on 
complaint acknowledgements. That's absolutely not acceptable. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But if people don't hear from 
your agency, then they assume that nothing's being done, and 
they're being ignored; right? 

MR. ABBOTT: That's a fair assumption, and I do 
take responsibility for that. I would react the very same way 
that the students are and Legal Aid is if I were confronted with 
an agency that did not respond to my complaint. 

Your point and their point are very well taken. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

Excuse me, Senator Polanco. 

SENATOR POLANCO: Mr. Chairman, Members, 
Mr. Abbott, at one point in time, was a committee consultant of 
Business and Professions at the time I had the opportunity to 
chair that committee. He comes before me in the capacity, 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



42 

budget capacity, as Subchair on Administration, funding it. 

The issues that Ms. Teresa Hughes raised are very 
important. Student rip-off s had occurred. They've been a major 
problem. 

I think that Mike Abbott brings the kind of 
integrity and the kind of commitment to ensure that we bring 
forward the changes necessary to address that particular issue 
that we are all concerned with. 

I've known him for sometime. It's a difficult 
Bureau, one of the most difficult, because of the history that 
has existed there. 

I'm here to ask that we support his nomination. 
Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses? 

MR. COOPER: Mr. Chairman, Gary Cooper, 
representing the California Association of Schools of 
Cosmetology. 

I've worked with Mr. Abbott for about 10 years 
dealing in cosmetology issues, and he has always proven to be 
very responsive. The cosmetology schools of California are 
very excited about having him in the position, and we strongly 
support his confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Ron Tom, representing the 
University of Phoenix and Devry University. 

We've seen a significant improvement in the 
Bureau since Mr. Abbott took over. The professionalism, 
organization, and efficiency we've recognized since he took over 



43 

has greatly improved over the previous administration, previous 
counsel . 

Thank you. 

MR. BOYER: Rick Boyer. I'm a private citizen at 
this point, but I've worked with the Bureau both before and 
after Mr. Abbott took over. I was president of a university 
that was regulated by the Bureau. 

Also saw a great improvement since Mike took 
over. I think it is significant that some months after his 
appointment, the Bureau received the nation's highest approval 
rating for education programs for veterans, and I think that's 
significant, in light of the fact that the Bureau probably 
regulates 25 percent of the private schools of the country. 

MR. EDWARDS: Senators, my name is Jim Edwards. I 
own a beauty school in Salinas, California. I'm a co-founder of 
the CASC that Gary Cooper was talking about. 

We're here on behalf of Mr. Abbott. We've seen 
major changes in the way we get input back and forth from their 
agency now. 

Prior to him coming, we'd make a call. No calls 
were ever returned. Now we have compliance. Things are working 
in place. It's a long way down the road. 

Thank you. 

MR. FEDERICO: Gary Federico, Federico 
Sacramento, and I'm also here in support of Mr. Michael Abbott. 

The last ten years, being caught up into this 
regulation since 1989, where 125 new rules and regulations hit 
our types of schools, it's amazing over the last nine months of 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



44 

how effective they've become. 

Personally, where I was resolved in a particular 
school investigation, and proud to say, though, we're airing it 
out. It's getting resolved. A student complaint comes in, the 
next day we're handled very effectively. That's for Senator 
Hughes as well. 

So, all I can do is give my support to 
Mr. Michael Abbott one hundred percent. 

MR. McHALE: Terry McHale with Aaron Read and 



Associates 



advantages — 



And I just wanted to say that one of the only 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who do you represent? 

MR. McHALE: We represent those who worked in B 
and P, Business and Professions Committee when Mr. Abbott was a 
consultant. And we were able to deal with him on a great many 
issues . 

For those of us who were new in the building in 
those days -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're not among the regulated, 
or among those doing business — 

MR. McHALE: Yes, sir. We're among those who 
admire him for the fact that he mentors young people, but that 
he also kind of moderates the more cynical. He's just an 
excellent person and we support him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anybody here from a barber 
college? Do you regulate those? 

MR. ABBOTT: We do. 



45 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They, still in existence? 
Barber college used to teach you how to shave with a straight 
razor. 

MR. ABBOTT: It's probably a good thing, Senator, 
that I haven't heard about them lately. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 

MR. SMITH: Thank you. Senator Burton and 
Committee Members. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity 
to speak. 

My name is Bob Smith. I'm owner of Pacific Coast 
Horseshoeing School in Sacramento. I'm a member of the Higher 
Education Law Project. We're a nonprofit corporation that 
assists very small schools in compliance issues, and I'm 
speaking on their behalf as well as my own. 

I'm current member of the Advisory Council to the 
Bureau, and a past voting member for the Council for Private 
Postsecondary and Vocational Education. 

I think the question here today is, is the 
Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education sector better off 
today under the leadership of Michael Abbott than it was a year 
ago? And I'd have to say, unfortunately, that's not the case. 

The Bureau itself is not better off. Massive 
staff turnovers of career DCA Employees, and interoffice battles 
have left that agency paralyzed and with sagging morale. 
Schools and students have to fight with a constant flux of new 
staff who need time to become proficient in this very complex 
law. 

I spoke to a woman two weeks ago that had four 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



46 

different education specialists in her attempt to get her school 
approved. 

I don't think the public is better off than it 
was year ago. We still have a plethora of unlicensed schools 
all over the state. 

The Higher Education Law Project requested five 
items from the Bureau under the Public Records Act in January of 
this year. After many meetings, and letters, and promises, we 
have received the complete information on one item, partial 
information on another, and have been consistently delayed on 
the other three. This has served to block a citizen's inquiry 
that would have allowed us to present hard data on what we feel 
are wrongful acts created by this agency. 

Existing schools are not better off than they 
were a year ago. The backlog for re-approval is overwhelming. 
The Bureau's requiring all schools to submit a complete 
application for renewal for their license as if they were a ne 
school, along with maximum fees. 

This is unlike any state licensing agency, whic 
was the -- Section 94840 was the Legislature's remedy for 
streamlining the re-approval process, easing the financial 
burden and workload on schools, and removing this backlog from 
the Bureau. 

New schools are not better off than they were a 
year ago. The law requires the Bureau to give either a 
temporary approval or a denial within 90 days of the receipt of 
an application. Schools are waiting a year or more for 
temporary approval. During this wait, they have buildings and 



47 

equipment leased, staff on salary, and no income. 

A group of artists wanted to start a film school 
in L.A., well financed, professional. They finally gave up 
after a year of trying to get a temporary approval and moved 
their school to Arizona. 

A cosmetology school in Southern California, 
after a year of unsuccessful attempts to attain a temporary 
approval, called their Congressman. He was so convinced of the 
injustice that he called the Governor's Office on behalf of the 
school . 

Shelley Boley here in south Sacramento had a 
dream of opening her own cosmetology school. For 30 years, 
she'd run her own shop. She finally decided to open the school. 
She made contact with the Bureau, received her application, 
completed the application, sent it back. She then began to make 
her dream come alive by taking a second out on her property. 
She borrowed $47,000 to make improvements, lease space and 
equipment. She waited for months and months, and nothing. The 
law requires 90 days for either a temporary approval or denial, 
but nothing happened. 

She begged, tried to get help from the Bureau. 
Now, after nearly a year, she's run out of the money. She's had 
to sell her salon to pay off the $47,000 debt, and she's 
emotionally and spiritually devastated and financially ruined. 

There' re hundreds of Shelleys out there. These 
are small schools, not the big corporations that we've been 
hearing about that get endorsed, but the little guys. These are 
families that sit around their kitchen table, agonizing whether 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



48 

to make the mortgage payments or their lease payments for their 
new school. They no longer have enough money to do both. 

Your vote for confirmation is telling the people 
of California that an unresponsive regulatory agency is 
acceptable, and to these people, that their personal tragedies 
don't really matter. 

I urge a no vote. Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

Questions from Members of the Committee? 

Did you want to have an opportunity to respond to 
any of the criticisms there? 

MR. ABBOTT: Well, I responded in general in my 
opening remarks. I'm not aware of the specifics of the 
instances that Mr. Smith talks about. 

I can tell you that since January of the year 
2000, we have proceeded to expedite new and re-approval 
applications. And I would be very surprised to learn that we 
are anything like the timeframes that he suggests. 

I will say that we had extraordinarily great 
difficulty in complying with the Public Records Act requests 
that Mr. Smith's organization put forward. My chronology 
differs from the one that HELP sent to the Committee, but the 
bottom line is that of the five points that they were asking 
for, two items didn't exist. We supplied one, although they 
dispute that. And one, I must say, literally died with the 
staff attorney who was working on that. 

So, I brought today — I have for Mr. Smith the 
items that he — the two outstanding items that HELP has 



49 

requested/ and I think that finally puts an end to it. 

I do take responsibility that it has taken us 
several months to comply with that request. That is not 
typical, nor is it our intent. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Any further comments or questions 
in opposition? We're taking opposition testimony. 

MR. FEDERICO: In regards to Mr. Smith's 
conversation in regards to a cosmetology school, Sacramento. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Wait. Would you identify 
yourself. 

MR. FEDERICO: Gary Federico. 

Shelley Bolay, Bolay's Beauty College, on 
Stockton Boulevard. 

The input on that is, that particular school was 
approved under the Bureau of Private and Postsecondary, but it 
wasn't approved under the Bureau of Barber and Cosmetology due 
to the fact it didn't have the proper square footage; it was an 
illegal operation, due to the fact that I was one that submitted 
the complaint against them. 

So, I just wanted to go ahead and recognize that 
fact, straighten that matter up. 

Thank you. 

MR. SMITH: May I respond? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Why not? 

MR. SMITH: The argument was not whether or not 
the operation had the square footage. It was the timetable. She 
should have known in 90 days that she would not be allowed to 
operate a school or what the requirements were, not seven, 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



50 

eight, nine months. 

She became in debt because of the agency's 
inability to respond within this proscribed 90 days. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And how much was she off on the 
square footage? 

MR. SMITH: She's off by 900 square feet. It's a 
3, 000 square foot minimum. She had no idea that that was 
required. She wasn't told by the Bureau. It wasn't in the 
literature she received from Cosmetology, and it was just an 
error. 

She would have made arrangements otherwise had 
she known that. 

The Bureau's response was, "I guess we overlooked 
that; I 'm sorry. " 

MR. ABBOTT: Senator, I have to say, the 
cosmetology profession is regulated by both my Bureau and the 
Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. We regulate all types of 
vocational schools, and we don't have the sort of particular 
detailed level of facility requirements and so forth that 
Mr. Smith describes. Those are a function of regulatory 
requirements of another agency. 

That's not to minimize the seriousness with which 
we take our statutory timeframes. I acknowledged in my opening 
statement that we, in the past, have had a significant problem. 
It's a diminishing problem in getting both new applications and 
re-approvals accomplished, but I think we're making very 
significant progress in that area. And at least since January, 
we have been doing our re-approvals on a very expedited basis, 



51 

even those there is confusion as to the proper interpretation of 
the statute. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right, so you approve 
something. In other words, it's the Barber and Cosmetology 
Board that sets the fact that their schools ought to have 3,000 
square feet, or whatever it is? 

MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's in statute, or is that 
by reg? 

MR. ABBOTT: I think that's in their — that 
program's regulation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they approve the size of 
this room, and what do you approve? What's going to get taught 
in the room? 

MR. ABBOTT: We approve — we take note that the 
curriculum — again, that's provided to us by the Barber 
Cosmetology program — is, in fact, incorporated in the plan 
that the school provides to us. 

We also — we're primarily concerned, Senator, 
with the credentials of the instructors who are teaching in 
those schools. We're also very concerned that, with regard to 
this industry particularly, there's a great deal of federal job 
training money and state money. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, I want to open a 
cosmetology school. So, I send a letter to them and to you? 

MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. It's not the most 
expeditious process. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes, it seems not. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 






52 

And it would seem to me, and whether it be 
jointly -- who's over you, the Ed. Committee? 

MR. ABBOTT: The Ed. Committee and B&P on the 
Senate side. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why should B&P be over you? 

MR. ABBOTT: Well, because we're an agency of 
the Department of Consumer Affairs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that, but you deal 
educational stuff. 

MR. ABBOTT: Primarily and historically, we have 
been overseen by Education Committee. When AB 71 was going 
through the process, the Business and Professions Committee got 
involved. 

Our program looks at schools as educational 
institutions, but they're also primarily businesses, and 
they're subject to the same kinds of entrepreneurial 
opportunities by good guys and bad guys as any other business. 
We have probably — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess the question I have, oi 
where I was going is, it seems like a screwed up way of doing 
stuff. It's got nothing to do with you. It's got to do with 
the process. 

Your thing is whether or not these women's 
teachers were qualified to teach whatever it is they were 
doing. Or whether or not the people you're doing know how to 
put on horseshoes. 

The other side, who is it, Ag., probably looks at 
whether or not you've got the right size of a barn. 



53 

It would seem to me there has to be some way of 
having some kind of coordination. I don't know what the heck it 
is. 

MR. ABBOTT: I agree, Senator. And that's one of 
the areas that I was intending to get out when I suggested that 
the statute is very convoluted. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All the people under — what's 
her name, Adams? 

MR. ABBOTT: Eileen Adams is the Agency 
Secretary. Kathleen Hamilton is the Director. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are they all under her? 

MR. ABBOTT: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't it make sense for her 
to try to bring together? No one's in any other agency; right? 
They're all under Eileen? 

MR. ABBOTT: I believe that's correct. I can't 
think of any exceptions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, if they're with other 
agencies, it could be interagency task force. If it's hers, it 
could be an intra-agency task force. But they ought to just 
really figure out how to just have one thing if somebody wants 
to open a school. 

One of them looks like a damn local zoning 
commission decision, and then the other one looks like you're 
running a legitimate school or a bunch of thieves. 

MR. ABBOTT: You're absolutely right, Senator, 
and we do have a Memoranda of Understanding with a number of 
regulatory boards in the Department of Consumer Affairs: 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



54 

Psychology, Optometry, Marriage Family and Child Counselors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let's say -- it's like I've got 
nothing else to do today -- but let's say it's a cosmetology 
thing, and it needs 300,000 square feet. What's the damn magic 
in that, unless it's so many square feet for so many pupils. 
But otherwise, what's the magic in the size of the square 
footage? 

MR. ABBOTT: I'm not aware of any, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You know, it sounds like years 
ago, I had somebody that tried to open a business in the City of 
Palmdale. 

But it just seems to me that you inherited 
something that's not much of your doing. I think maybe, just to 
keep us out of it, but have Eileen Adams look at it, because 
they aren't statutes. 

The type of school you have shouldn't necessarily 
be related to how big it is. If you're going to be limited, 
you're only going to take ten students, you don't need all that 
space, unless ten students means ten sinks, and ten this, and 
ten that, and the others. 

I think that's something to be looked at. 

MR. ABBOTT: Senator, I know that Kathleen 
Hamilton, the Director of Consumer Affairs, is very interested 
in this issue because she sees a lot of overlap and lack of 
coordination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, somebody ought to be 
interested in it, because I sure as hell ain't. 

Any further questions, Members of the Committee? 



55 

Move the approval. 

Thank you, sir. We're very serious about getting 
them, because what they're doing doesn't — were there any 
other witnesses in opposition. 

Moved by Senator O'Connell. Call roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Lewis. 
Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

Keep the roll open for Senator Lewis. Thank you. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR LEWIS added) 
his Aye vote, making the final vote 
5-0 for confirmation.] 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 5:16 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



56 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
>?3 day of /x^-^^^~ i 2000. 







407-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 407-R when ordering. 



^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 




SEP - 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



L «^ <*/*-*■<" «- 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2000 
4:07 P.M. 



408-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2 000 
4:07 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 
SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 
SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 
SENATOR JACK ' CONNELL 

MEMBER ABSENT 
SENATOR JOHN LEWIS, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 
GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 
WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to SENATOR LEWIS 
FELICE TANENBAUM, Consultant to SENATOR HUGHES 
ANDY PUGNO, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

HARRY W. LOW 
Insurance Commissioner 

MARCH FONG EU, Former Ambassador 
Former California Secretary of State 

CECILY BOND, Retired Judge 
Sacramento Superior Court 

JAMES DUVARAS, JR., Retired Judge 
Santa Clara Superior Court 

JOHN FORAN, Former State Senator 



Ill 
INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

JUSTICE HARRY LOW 

Insurance Commissioner 1 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Intent of Committee 1 

Introduction by CHAIRMAN BURTON 2 

Background and Experience 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Possibility of Making Public 

Market Conduct Exams 4 

Public's Right to Know of 

Unscrupulous Insurance Practices 5 

View on Commissioners Taking 

Contributions from Entities They 

Regulate 6 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Plans to Change Insurance Code, to 

Make Market Conduct Exams Public 7 

Voluntary Rescission of Settlement 

Agreements as Proposed by 

Commissioner Kelso 8 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Plans to Change Image of Department 9 

Appropriateness of Employees 

Leaking Internal Documents 10 



IV 



Fate of Whistleblowers 11 

Responsiveness of Department to 

Consumers 12 

View of AG's Decision that Settlements 

Between Department and Northridge 

Earthquake Insurers Were Illegal 12 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Mutual Rescission Plan 13 

Witnesses in Support: 

AMBASSADOR MARCH FONG EU 

Former Ambassador to Micronesia 

Former California Secretary of State 14 

JUDGE CECILY BOND, Retired Judge 

Sacramento County Superior Court 17 

JUDGE JAMES DUVARAS , JR., Retired Judge 

Santa Clara County Superior Court 19 

SENATOR JOHN FORAN 2 

Motion to Confirm 21 

Committee Action 21 

Termination of Proceedings 22 

Certificate of Reporter 23 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— OOOoo — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good afternoon, Justice Low, 
witnesses . 

Before we ask you for your statement, before we 
have the Ambassador come up to introduce you, it's not our 
intention to ask you to take positions on all of the issues 
facing the Department. We know that you haven't had a chance to 
fully deal with the issues and would rather you keep an open 
mind. 

We did follow with interest your testimony at the 
Assembly Committee and appreciated your answers. We may want to 
bring you back, not to the Rules Committee, but probably to the 
Committee on Insurance and conceivably the Budget Subcommittee 
to ask questions. 

We want to hear your statement, give witnesses a 
chance to testify. The Members of the Committee have been 
provided with a summary of your judicial opinions, and there may 
be some questions there. 

Again, we subscribe, I think, to a point that was 
raised by the Speaker, that although you will be a gubernatorial 
appointee, you're taking an independent constitutional office, 
as opposed to being part of the administration itself. And we 
believe that as you were a judge, appointed by governors, once 
you became a judge, that was a constitutional situation for you 
to act as the law and your conscience deemed fit. And we hope 
that the same will take place on the Insurance Commission. 

Again, as a judge, you were impartial. And I 



think that Measure 103, that created the constitutional office, 
viewed the Insurance Commissioner as being more active and more 
advocate. 

So, Judge, would you like to come up. 

March, would you like to come up? Are you 
introducing the Judge? 

AMBASSADOR EU: I'm just testifying. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I will introduce the Judge. 

Justice Harry Low, long-time friend of mine whose 
wife, Mayling, taught me how to use chopsticks at the Ku Wah 
many years ago. 

JUSTICE LOW: Launched your career and kept it 
going. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Never looked back. 

JUSTICE LOW: Senator and President Pro Tern John 
Burton, and Members of the Senate Rules Committee, I 
respectfully ask that you confirm Governor Gray Davis' 
nomination of me as the Insurance Commissioner of California. 

I welcome this opportunity to serve the people of 
this state. I pledge to you and to all the Members of the 
California Legislature that I will use my best efforts to 
restore trust and confidence in the Department of Insurance. 

For more than 36 years, I've engaged in public 
service as a law instructor, Deputy Attorney General, Workers 
Compensation Appeals Commissioner, and as a trial judge, and as 
an Appellate Justice. And for the last eight years, I've worked 
as a full-time mediator and arbitrator. 

Throughout my career, I've served the community 



and the legal profession in a variety of civic and charitable 
organizations, and you have that record, I'm sure, before you. 
And even while I was a private mediator and arbitrator, I served 
four years recently as the President of the San Francisco Police 
Commission, and for the last 18 months as President of the San 
Francisco Human Rights Commission. 

If confirmed, I will devote all my energies to 
this very important post, and I will enforce the laws diligently 
and justly. The regulatory process must be open, fair, and 
equitable, and the Insurance Department must protect consumers 
against unfair practices, as well as excess or discriminatory 
insurance rates, and against insurer financial instability. 
Everyone must be served in the most efficient, responsive 
manner. 

It's my goal to improve the morale of the 
Department of Insurance staff and to make improvements in the 
operations of the Department. 

I hope to benefit from the valuable and extensive 
investigation that the Assembly Insurance Committee has 
conducted. I've had brief discussions with Senator Jackie 
Speier, Chair of the Senate Insurance Committee, and I will meet 
with her on September 5th, 2000, and I expect to gain additional 
insights on the important issues that face the Department. 

Professor Clark Kelso has also briefed me on many 
of the key issues, and if confirmed, I expect that there will be 
a smooth transition. 

I look forward to the challenge ahead and to be 
of service to the State of California. I respectfully ask your 



Rules Committee to give me your favorable consideration in the 
confirmation process. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Judge. 

One of the issues that came to light and was 
fairly controversial was the Conduct Market Exams that the law 
allows, but does not mandate to be treated as confidential 
documents. Those documents were made available to the 
Legislature by a whistleblower . I think those documents helped 
lead to former Commissioner Quackenbush' s decision to step down. 

The law, as I read it, is permissive in that they 
may be made public. As Insurance Commissioner, what's your view 
on making future Market Conduct Exams public, which, as I 
understand, several other states do? 

JUSTICE LOW: I've read that law and reviewed 
that Section 735.5 of the Insurance Code. 

I think that the confidentiality provisions say 
what they say, and that there is some discretion in the 
Insurance Commissioner to make that information available to the 
public. Certainly, in the legislative oversight 
responsibilities and certain investigations, that 
confidentiality provision may have to yield. 

But there is a certain important public policy 
that the Legislature has provided, that financial information 
should be kept confidential to the extent that it may disclose 
matters that may be harmful to the industry. So, I will respect 
that in the same way that tax returns and other information, 
financial information, is confidential. 



I also respect the fact that whistleblowers may 
not, as a matter of public policy/ be punished or disciplined 
for violation of any — for a required violation of a statute or 
ordinance, or for telling people of improper conduct. And I 
think it's the balancing of those public policies that the 
Insurance Commissioner ought to consider. 

With respect to the Cindy Ossias matter, I 
certainly concur with Professor Kelso's decision to reinstate 
her. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, putting out financial 
information that would put a company -- maybe do them damage, 
but also, I think, the public has a right to know if, God 
forbid, there was an insurance company that was engaging in, at 
a minimum description, sharp practices. 

In other words, the things that we found in the 
earthquake situation, they were basically doing bad things. I 
would think that the public should have the right to know that 
their insurance company, or one they're thinking about — 
because you drive down the highway now and it's 2 0th Century, 
Mercury, AIG. I mean, they're advertising like any other 
product — and should have the right to know if they're — you 
know, maybe not the integral financial workings, but certainly 
if they're engaged in practices that, you know, are suspect, to 
say the least. 

JUSTICE LOW: My philosophy has always been to 
run an open shop, as to the extent any information that belongs 
to the public can be disclosed without violation of any 
confidentiality provisions. 



This is a government agency. Public does have 
the right to know. 

For ten years, I Chaired the San Francisco Bench 
Bar Media Committee that emphasized openness. I've worked very 
close with the San Francisco sunshine laws, and I fully 
subscribe to the philosophy that government business should be 
in the open. 

To the extent that that can be fulfilled, that 
certainly will be the philosophy that I will use. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know how much time 
you've had to look into this, Judge, but I would imagine that 
within Conduct Market Exams, there's certain things that clearly 
can be made public. All they would do would be let the people 
know that the company isn't the kind of company you may want to 
give your premiums to. And stuff that is not of that level, 
that would be held back. 

Do you have any plans to seek, election to this 
body? There's a question about it, and I'll ask it anyway, but 
I think I know. Short of another earthquake that's going to 
happen at 104 Turquoise, you're not going to think about running 
for the office. 

Do you think that Insurance Commissioners should 
be prohibited from taking contributions from the people that 
they regulate? 

JUSTICE LOW: I think as matter of ethics, I 
would say they should not. And I certainly, as a matter of my 
practice, will not be taking any contributions. In fact, I will 
not take any contributions for any political or elective 



purpose. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Justice Low, you've indicated that the 
information that was released concerning the Market Conduct 
Exams, and so forth, was against Insurance Code 735.5, and we 
have reinstated the individual who released that information. 

If you believe that information should be made 
public, then do you have any plans to change the Code so that it 
is not in violation of the Code when somebody releases that 
information? 

JUSTICE LOW: I have no immediate plan, Senator, 
to propose that. I think that this might be an area for the 
Legislature to set the policy on what is confidential and what 
is not confidential. And I will abide by what the Legislature 
has provided. 

My general philosophy, however, is to keep 
matters as open as possible so the public knows what is going 
on. However, there are certain protections which I fully 
subscribe to about financial data, financial information, that 
may be more desirable to keep confidential so as to have 
accurate and full reporting. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I understand your desire to be 
as open as possible. And I think we all are. We want an open 
government as much as possible. 

But where there are codes that provide for the 
confidentiality of information, then I think we either should 
change the code or comply with the code and make the data 



8 

confidential . 

JUSTICE LOW: Correct. I fully subscribe to 
that. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: One other item. Commissioner 
Kelso has made one of his goals to seek mutual rescission of 
questionable settlements reached by former Commissioner 
Quackenbush. He was there on an interim, really, and he is 
establishing pretty significant areas. 

Do you believe that he should be doing that, or 
will you change that? 

JUSTICE LOW: No, I've discussed this with 
Professor Kelso. I think that it is a desirable goal to ask the 
insurance companies to voluntarily rescind those agreements, 
because there is a possibility that they may face long 
litigation. There may be some concerns about were these 
agreements made fairly, and based upon the facts. 

And I think that, let's rescind these agreements, 
start off new. And if there had been abuses, then these should 
be dealt with by the Insurance Commissioner. If there were not 
abuses, then the agreements and to get money to support a 
foundation may not be fully supportable. 

But I think that the concept of rescinding these 
and starting afresh, and looking at it fairly and impartially, 
and forcefully, in compliance with the law, is what I think 
Professor Kelso has sought to do, and I support that. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: You concur with his judgment in 
terms of what agreements to rescind and which ones not to? 
You've evaluated all of them? 



9 

JUSTICE LOW: The goal is to rescind all of them 
and to start fresh. And also to allow the Insurance Commission 
to impose penalties or to review the actions taken by the 
insurance companies, to suggest corrections, or whatever else, 
but it would be a fresh start. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And you've communicated all this 
with Mr. Kelso and are in agreement with what he's doing? 

JUSTICE LOW: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Good afternoon. 

JUSTICE LOW: Good afternoon. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What on earth are you going to 
do to try to better the image of the Insurance Department? It's 
such a tremendous job. What are your plans? 

JUSTICE LOW: Well, I immediately think that 
establishing a reputation of fairness, impartiality, not siding 
one way or the other, is a start. 

There are some immediate problems that I think 
will have to be addressed. I think that some of the staffing 
problems have to be examined. I understand that there are some 
200-300 vacancies in a 1200-person agency. 

I think that the legal department could use some 
help in terms of new technologies to trace their cases better, 
follow cases, to be more up-to-date. 

I think the complaint division could be better 
staffed. 

I think that there are some reviews of contracts 
that might have to be made in terms of payments to outside 



10 

consultants and outside lawyers. The hiring of lawyers for 
certain individuals who appear before legislative committees, 
for example, may have to be reviewed and perhaps denied. 

I think that there will also be some major issues 
that need very close attention. Certainly, the Northridge 
earthquake matters need to be carefully reviewed, and I intend 
to give that very high priority. I think there's a lot of 
public interest in that, and I will give it full attention. 

The Holocaust claims, I think, need to be 
restarted and re-examined so that we can bring social justice to 
those victims of World War II atrocities. 

There are a number of such things that I hope can 
be done very, very quickly, and I intend to address those 
shortly after my assuming of office. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What are your thoughts about 
those Department employees who leaked internal documents? Were 
they acting appropriately? How do you plan. dealing with them? 

JUSTICE LOW: Well, hopefully, there will not be 
any improper or illegal activity on my watch. I hope to be able 
to instill a great deal of responsibility, a sense of ethical 
performance by everyone. I hope to bring out the very best in 
the employees to follow what are the mandates, as well as the 
ethical mandates of our responsibilities in the Insurance 
Department. 

As I mentioned, no employee should be and can be 
disciplined for reporting illegal and improper activity. 

With respect to the confidentiality provisions 
that Senator Knight referred to, I certainly think that we need 



11 

to balance that with the right of an employee to report 
misconduct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Are you going to go back and 
review any of the alleged whistleblowers? And if you are, what 
kind of criteria are you going to develop in determining their 
fate? 

JUSTICE LOW: I don't know of any other 
whistleblower, other than the Cindy Ossias case, which I have 
looked at, and now I hope that's behind us. 

But if there are other cases, I will look at it 
from the standpoint of how serious was the reporting of this 
improper conduct, and was it justified. If it was, then there 
should be no discipline. 

If, however, there is a violation by the employee 
of disclosures that might not be appropriate, then I think there 
has to be some balancing about how serious the reporting bears 
upon illegal conduct or improper conduct. And we certainly do 
not want employees disclosing confidential information if it is 
for some reason other than to point to an illegal conduct or 
improper conduct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: During the course of the Senate 
Insurance Committee hearings, I had asked Commissioner 
Quackenbush about how he handled the numerous number of requests 
for information about earthquake coverage from members of the 
public, and whether he recorded the numbers of phone calls, and 
who those calls were from, and whether he answered by letter, or 
what have you. 

He was very curt to me. He never gave me a 



12 

satisfactory answer. 

How will you handle people who now will say, 
maybe with a new person in the Insurance Department, we can get 
some satisfaction? 

JUSTICE LOW: One, I certainly hope to improve 
the relationship between Legislators and the Insurance 
Department. And I hope that this relationship will allow for 
full exchange of information. 

I fully believe that in the role of the 
Legislature, as an oversight responsibility, or in any 
investigations, say, conducted by the Attorney General or the 
FBI, that it will be my policy to say that everyone must 
cooperate, everyone must provide the information requested. And 
that failure to do so would be a breach of our public 
responsibility. 

And I pledge to you that I will be as open as I 
can possibly be. And I hope that my reputation for courtesy and 
willingness to provide information will continue, and I expect 
that it will. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you agree with the AG that 
the settlements between the Department and the Northridge 
earthquake insurers were illegal? 

JUSTICE LOW: Well, I've read that Attorney 
General's opinion. And I certainly need to study it a little 
bit more. There are parts of that opinion that cause me to 
raise some additional questions that I want to discuss with the 
Attorney General. . 

But if there is a legal basis for proceeding on a 



13 

factual basis, for proceeding, as the Attorney General seems to 
suggest, then I intend to fully pursue the setting aside or the 
rescission of those agreements, those settlement agreements. 

That is why I support the request that 
Commissioner Kelso has made to the insurance companies: Let's 
set these aside now, do it voluntarily, because the next 
Commissioner may bring a very serious lawsuit that may set it 
aside, tie you up with litigation, and perhaps that isn't the 
best course to make. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I realize that you are aware of 
the fact that your plate very full. It sounds like you have a 
plan for attacking that. 

Thank you. 

JUSTICE LOW: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Under this mutual rescission 
situation, then the injured parties would have the ability to 
seek counsel, or how would that work? 

JUSTICE LOW: I guess the rescission would be 
that giving money to a foundation, however that was created, 
would be set aside, or the foundation would continue to operate 
for valid purposes. And then, the Insurance Department would 
review the marketing information, and then, if there were 
misconduct — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you're talking about 
rescissions of the deals between the insurers and the 
Department? In lieu of paying a fine, they made these 
contributions? 

JUSTICE LOW: Right. 



14 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They aren't talking about the 
problems that the homeowners had. 

JUSTICE LOW: No. I think that that is -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which make me wonder even more 
why he spoke out against my bill. 

JUSTICE LOW: And I certainly don't believe that 
there is any link, necessary link, between your bill — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And that, because all that's 
talking about is, the Commissioner found that the companies 
didn't do everything totally proper. So, there was an option of 
giving to the foundation, or foundations, or paying a fine. And 
they took that. 

So, that's what they're talking about rescinding. 

JUSTICE LOW: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're not talking about 
protecting the homeowners? 

JUSTICE LOW: No, that is a separate issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Witnesses in support, Madam Ambassador. 

AMBASSADOR EU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 
and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for having me here to testify this 
afternoon at the confirmation hearing for Justice Harry Low as 
the next Insurance Commissioner for the State of California. 
I'm both pleased and honored for this opportunity to speak on 
his behalf. 

I am March Fong Eu. I am a recently retired U.S. 
Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia, and a former 



15 

California Secretary of State. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And a former member of the 
Oakland School board, as I recall. 

AMBASSADOR EU: Oh, my. You go back too far. 
[Laughter. ] 

AMBASSADOR EU: Prior to being Secretary of 
State, I was a four-term California State Assemblywoman, 
representing the 15th Assembly District in the East Bay Area. 

Justice Low was nominated and became a municipal 
court judge in San Francisco at about the same time I won my 
first election to the State Assembly. 

But it is not only in our parallel public service 
roles that I have known Justice Harry Low. Our friendship and 
relationship go far beyond that period of our lives. We can 
safely say that they began at birth. 

Justice Low's ancestors and my ancestors came 
from the same village in the Canton Province, which is now known 
as the Wantung Province. We are both part of a family 
association that encompasses the descendants those who migrated 
to America from the far village in Canton Province in China. 
So, I guess we can call ourselves clan mates. 

But the similarities go beyond that. My parents 
owned and operated a hand laundry in the Central Valley, the 
City of Oakdale, to be exact. Justice Low's parents also had a 
hand laundry, but in a different town in the Central Valley. 

When my parents moved to the Bay Area from 
Oakdale, they sold the Oakdale laundry to Harry's parents. 
Well, there's nothing unusual in that, not until I tell you that 



16 

I was born in the back room of that Oakdale hand laundry. And, 
a few years later, after Harry's folks had had the laundry, 
Harry was born in the same back room of that same Oakdale hand 
laundry. 

To this day, the elders of our family association 
swear that there must be some magic in that spot where these two 
Chinese-American public figures emerged. So, now we are not 
only clan mates, but I guess birth mates. 

I can honestly say that Justice Low and I have 
known each other since birth, and also say that the 
circumstances of our birth justify our claim for being very 
clean politicians. 

[Laughter. ] 

AMBASSADOR EU: So, I am pleased and honored to 
speak on his behalf today. His record of public service speaks 
for itself. Many speakers to attest to that will follow me. 

But I add to that by also having had the 
privilege of knowing Harry as a person, and I can tell you, from 
observing him during our lifetime, that his integrity, his 
intelligence, and his hard-working spirit go beyond just his 
public life. He is one of the most caring and compassionate 
human beings with whom I am associated, and I might add, 
related. 

What better describes my respect for this 
outstanding person than to tell you that for the five times that 
I was elected California's Secretary of State, I chose Justice 
Harry Low to swear me in on each occasion. 

I know that all Californians will be well-served 



1*7 

by Justice Harry Low as the Insurance Commissioner for the State 
of California. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, March. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: With all of that capability, 
there was no marriage? 

[Laughter. ] 

AMBASSADOR EU: It's not too late. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 

JUSTICE LOW: Yes, Judge Cecily Bond. 

JUDGE BOND: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Committee. Thank you very much. 

I certainly share March Fong's use of "honor" 
being here today to speak on behalf of Justice Low. 

I recently retired, for those of you who don't 
know me, from the Sacramento Superior Court, after serving 20 
years as a superior court judge, including two terms as a 
presiding judge. 

Immediately prior to my appointment to the bench, 
I served for four-and-a-half years as a Deputy Director and 
Chief Counsel of the Employment Development Department here in 
Sacramento. 

I'm Cecily Bond, Judge Cecily Bond. 

So, I am very familiar with the administrative 
duties and the responsibilities of managing a major state 
department. 

And, as I indicated, it's my great honor to be 



18 

here today to support the appointment of Justice Low. 

I think the essence of an outstanding judge is 
one who is fair and even-handed to all who appear, but who also 
has the intellectual capacity to interpret the law wisely, and 
has the courage and integrity to enforce it fairly. These are 
the qualities that Justice Low exhibits: fairness, wisdom, 
integrity, courage, and intelligence. 

But Justice Low has another very important and 
crucial character which I think will stand him very good stead 
as the Insurance Commissioner. His entire career has indicated 
this. That is, his leadership ability and his administrative 
experience. He has held numerous leadership positions, as I'm 
sure his resume, which you have, indicates, including being the 
Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeal, heading the California 
Judges Association, and many others, some of which he mentioned 
this afternoon. 

His ability to bring diverse and sometimes very 
conflicting groups, parties, and litigants together, and to 
achieve a result by mediation, arbitration, which is accepted by 
all, I think, is a very great skill, and a skill that will hold 
him and assist him greatly in these duties. Certainly, these 
are qualities that are needed to restore the trust and 
confidence of the people of California in the office of the 
Insurance Commissioner. 

I think the Governor has made, and could not have 
made a wiser or more appropriate choice, and I certainly urge 
you to recommend his confirmation, because I believe he will be 
a great Commissioner for the State of California. 



19 

Thank you very much. 

JUSTICE LOW: Judge James Duvaras. 

JUDGE DUVARAS: Good afternoon. How are you, 
John? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good, Jim. Goes back with 
Phillip, a long time. 

JUDGE DUVARAS: My name is James Duvaras, Jr. 
I'm a retired Judge of the Superior Court from Santa Clara 
County. 

I'm very pleased and honored to have this 
opportunity . to speak on behalf of Justice Low's confirmation to 
the Governor's appointment as Insurance Commissioner. 

I first met Justice Low in 1976, when we were 
elected as Members of the Board of Directors California Judges 
Association. We served together for three years, with Justice 
Low being elected President of the Association in the last 
year. And since completing our terms as Board Members, we have 
served together on a number of Association committees, and 
served as faculty and staff members of the Judges College. 

In recent years, we have both been panelists with 
the JAMS/ENDISPUTE organization as arbitrators, mediators, and 
special masters. 

Having worked with Justice Low all these years, I 
have become very impressed with his character, his honesty, his 
intellect, his legal expertise, and his administrative 
abilities. His many accomplishments are due to his efforts 
both as a jurist and also as a person who gives of his time and 
effort to the community and community improvements. 



20 

In this day and age when serious concerns arise 
about the integrity of those who hold public office, it is very 
satisfying and encouraging to see that Governor Davis appoints 
an individual of Justice Low's caliber. The availability of an 
individual of Justice Low's stature should be very gratifying to 
the public. 

If I were a practicing lawyer today, or a 
litigant in a lawsuit, I would not hesitate for a moment in 
choosing Justice Low to resolve the dispute by a settlement 
procedure, or by rendering a decision, as he is a man who is 
impartial, not only that, but fair, and sees through to the 
heart of a matter. 

In closing, I respectfully request that you 
confirm Governor Davis' excellent choice of Justice Low as the 
Insurance Commissioner. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Judge. 

Witnesses in support. Mr. Foran. 

SENATOR FORAN: I'd move his nomination, if I 



could, 



up and do so 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, why don't you just walk 



SENATOR FORAN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Deputy AGs stick together. 

SENATOR FORAN: That's right. 

My knowledge of Harry Low goes back to the 
Attorney General's Office. We served in 1959-1960. And then I 
worked with him many, many years. 



21 

I think he's a very well-qualified individual, 
and I hope that I confirm him. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have family here you 
want to introduce, Judge? 

JUSTICE LOW: I have my daughter-in-law, my two 
granddaughters, some in-laws. 

Unfortunately, my wife couldn't be here to check 
on your chopstick skills. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I still do it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to move the nomination, 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, it's been moved by Senator Hughes. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Lewis assured me, had 
he been here, that he would be supportive, so congratulations, 
Harry. 



22 



all 



JUSTICE LOW: Thank you very much. Thank you 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 4:50 P.M.] 
--00O00 — 



23 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



«P? 



l 



day of 




, 2000. 



v 

\4 



^EVELYN" J. MIZAKN 



^IZAIC 
Shorthand Reporter 



408-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 408-R when ordering. 






DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



^HEARING 

^ SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2000 
1:35 P.M. 



409-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2000 
1:35 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, Chair 

SENATOR ROSS JOHNSON, Vice Chair 

SENATOR TERESA HUGHES 

SENATOR WILLIAM KNIGHT 

SENATOR JACK O'CONNELL 

STAFF PRESENT 

GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

SUSIE SWATT, Consultant to SENATOR JOHNSON 

CHRIS BURNS, Consultant to SENATOR KNIGHT 

ALSO PRESENT 

ALFRED R. ANGELE , Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

DAVE HEPBURN, Chair 
Board of Prison Terms 

WILLIAM HEMBY 

California Coalition of Police and Sheriffs 

NANCY McGILL 

DON NOVEY, President 

California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations 

ALBERT E. LeBAS 

California Peace Officers Memorial Foundation 

SHARON L. LAWIN, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 



Ill 



JAMES E. VOGTS, Legislative Liaison 

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association 

Santa Ana Police Officers Association 

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs 

Long Beach Police Officers Association 

Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement 

International Union of Police Associations 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations 

TIM YARYAN 

Los Angeles Police Protective League 
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs 
Los Angeles Probation Union, AFSCME Local 6 85 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

ALFRED R. ANGELE, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Recommended Internal Changes 2 

Recording System 2 

DAVD HEPBURN, Chair 

Board of Prison Terms 3 

Questions of MR. HEPBURN by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Parole Hearing Recording Equipment 3 

Request for Explanation of Equipment 

Purchase 4 

Questions of MR. ANGELE by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Internal Changes 4 

Investigation of Battered Women's 

Syndrome Cases 5 

Department Forthcoming in Supplying 

Requested Information 5 

Overhaul of Regulations 6 

Response by MR. HEPBURN 6 

Length of Time to Prepare for Hearings 6 

Discussion of Case Prior to Hearing 7 

Battered Women' s Syndrome Cases 8 



V 



Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Cause of High Rate of Recidivism 9 

Plans to Deal with Recidivism Rate 9 

Response by MR. HEPBURN 9 

Response by MR. ANGELE 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Other States and YOPB's Policy of Allowing 

Prisoners to Respond to Information 

Presented at Parole Hearing 12 

Response by MR. HEPBURN 12 

Lack of Sensible Answer 14 

Issue Better Handled in Budget Hearings 15 

Witness in Support: 

WILLIAM HEMBY 

California Organization of Police and Sheriffs 15 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Decision Review Process 16 

Ability to Overrule Findings of 

Parole Hearing Panel 17 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

NANCY McGIL 17 

DONALD NOVEY, President 

California Coalition of Law Enforcement 

Associations 29 

ALBERT E. LeBAS , Executive Director 

California Peace Officer Memorial Foundation 31 

Response by MR. ANGELE 32 



VI 



Motion to Confirm 34 

Committee Action 34 

SHARON L. LAWIN, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 34 

Background and Experience 34 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Recommendations for Internal Changes 36 

Availability of Requested Information 3 7 

Position on Allowing Inmates to 

Respond to Negative Comments at Hearing 3 7 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Sharing Knowledge to Help Reduce 

Recidivism 3 8 

Motion to Confirm , 3 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Rule of Board in Implementation of 

Proposition 36 39 

Response by MR. HEPBURN 4 

Effect of Prop. 36 on Prison Population 4 

Reversal of Granted Parole Date 41 

Decision Review Panel 41 

Statements by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Ability of Review Panel to Arbitrarily 

Reverse Parole Decisions 43 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Issue Should Be Left to Budget Committee 43 

How Board Does Business Is Bizarre 44 



VI 1 



Witnesses in Support: 

JIM VOGTS 

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers 
Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; 
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs; Long 
Beach Police Officers Association; Southern California 
Alliance of Law Enforcement; International Union of 
Police Associations; California Correctional Peace 
Officers Association; California Coalition of Law 
Enforcement Associations 45 

TIM YARYAN 

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs 

Los Angeles Police Protective League 

Los Angeles Probation Union, AFSCME Local 685 

Riverside Sheriffs 47 

ALBERT E. LeBAS , Executive Director 

California Peace Officer Memorial Foundation 47 

Committee Action 48 

Termination of Proceedings 49 

Certificate of Reporter 50 

Addendums to McGILL Testimony in Opposition 51-62 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees today, 
Member of the Board of Prison Terms, Al Angele. 

MR. ANGELE: Good afternoon, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Good afternoon. 

MR. ANGELE: Senator Burton, Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee, I come before you seeking your 
consideration for confirmation of my appointment to the Board of 
Prison Terms. 

Before I speak to the issues that we are here 
for, I feel compelled to inform you that there might be members 
of the law enforcement community intending to testify against my 
confirmation. I bring this to your attention only because of 
the exaggerations and falsehoods contained in the letter that 
was recently delivered to you or to this Committee. 

I have submitted a letter referring to that 
particular letter, along with documents that refute some of 
those statements. I am at your disposal to answer any and all 
questions you have regarding any issue you deem appropriate to 
explore . 

However, I have issues of a more significant 
nature to discuss with you this afternoon, issues related to the 
Board of Prison Terms. Governor Davis appointed me to the Board 
of Prison Terms on December 29th, 1999. Since that time I have 
participated in nearly 700 parole consideration hearings for 
life prisoners. I performed those duties in a professional, 
unbiased manner and asked to be judged on my performance. 



Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've served almost a year; 
right? 

MR. ANGELE: Yes, that's correct, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What type of internal changes 
or changes in the internal operation do you think would be 
advantageous to improving the process? 

MR. ANGELE: I think the ones basically that are 
being conducted right now, there are a number of issues that we 
need to speak about. One is the recording issue, obviously. 
We have taken steps to research and develop a new system. Parts 
of that system have been delivered. We're waiting for the third 
portion of it — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It has been delivered? 

MR. ANGELE: That is correct, to our office, the 
Board of Prison Terms. We're waiting for the third element, 
which is the cabling. Once that cabling has been delivered, we 
will then transmit the first operating units to the prisons that 
are going to be first on the list of hearings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long have we been trying to 
get them to do that, Nettie? 

MS. SABELHAUS: Since last spring, March or 
April. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they've got the material; 
they haven't got it hooked up yet? 

MR. ANGELE: That's correct. One of the problems 
was that all — that the three particular components had to be 
ordered from three separate vendors. And as a result — 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why? I guess you don't know. 

MR. ANGELE: I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Didn't we want somebody here 
from the Board of Prison Terms? 

MR. HEPBURN: Senator, I'm trying to get this 
done. I'm as frustrated as anybody in trying to move up the 
process . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're talking about recording 
stuff; right? 

MR. HEPBURN: I'm sorry, I meant to identify 
myself. Dave Hepburn, Chairman, Board of Prison Terms. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're talking about recording 
stuff; right? 

MR. HEPBURN: We are. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's so God damn complicated? 

MR. HEPBURN: It's not complicated. We tested a 
number of combinations of equipment. When we decided which set 
of combinations we wanted to get, we ordered the equipment. It 
has come in, as indicated by Commissioner Angele. We've got the 
recorders; we've got the microphones. We need the cables, which 
came from another vendor. 

And as soon as they come in, they'll be rolled 
out to the first institution. And they should be in any time, 
and we'll get them in the institution the week after we receive 
them at the Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There isn't somebody that could 
go and buy these things? You needed somebody to sell you one 
part, some another part, and some a part of cable? 



MR. HEPBURN: Apparently we did. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who did the purchasing on that? 

MR. HEPBURN: Somebody in our administrative 
section . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'd like them to explain why. 
You don't have to do it right now, but just kind of let us 
know. 

It would seem to me, in this modern day, that you 
could say, "We want to record hearings, and we want to buy 
something that does it." And people say, "Yeah, that's what we 
do for a living, here it is." 

MR. HEPBURN: We wanted to get the optimal set of 
equipment. We tested a variety of combinations of equipment, 
and this is what we came up with. I'd like to have gotten it 
done sooner, and we are working on it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Back on internal improvements or changes . 

MR. ANGELE: Changes that we also are very 
obviously involved in now are the battered women's syndrome 
problem. There's been a number of investigations that have 
been completed, by the way. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We can't hear you. Move the 
microphone closer to you. 

MR. ANGELE: As I was saying, the battered 
women's syndrome problem, there were 31 cases that had been 
outstanding. They have now been investigated, and they're 
waiting now to complete the full investigation on those issues. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're being investigated and 
you're waiting for — 

MR. ANGELE: They were investigated because they 
were pre-BWIs, so they had been — the face-to-face meetings 
have been conducted with, I believe, 28 of 31 individuals. And 
now they're trying to set up dates for the actual 
investigations . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Set up the dates of what? 

MR. ANGELE: For the actual investigations. 
There are seven investigators in the Investigative Unit. Three 
of them are now working on death row issues, so there are four 
investigators to handle these 31 cases. So, they are scheduling 
their investigations now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They have met with inmates. 

MR. ANGELE: Yes, face-to-face. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And then they get that, and 
then they go out and check — 

MR. ANGELE: That is correct; yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: — something else. 

MR. ANGELE: That is correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When you, as a Commissioner, 
ask for information from whomever you would ask for in the 
department, are they forthcoming with information that you need 
or asked for? 

MR. ANGELE: I think it depends on what the 
issues are. Some issues are forthcoming immediately; some 
take — tend to take research. That may take a while, so we 
don't get it right away. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any idea, there's 
supposed to be an overhaul of the regulations, when that's 
supposed to be coming up? 

MR. ANGELE: I did discuss that this morning, and 
we don't have a date. Obviously I don't have a date, but they 
are being worked on presently. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mr. Chairman, do you have any 
idea? 

MR. HEPBURN: Senator, it's my intention to 
develop some working committees in the beginning of next year, 
in January. I view that as a long term project. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about a short term project 
to correct some of the problems that you have with your regs? 
It takes us six months to get a letter answered. God knows how 
long it'll take you to overhaul your regs. 

MR. HEPBURN: There are some changes we've made 
to our regulations recently at our board meeting in October. 
One dealt with battered women's syndrome issues, and another 
dealt with regulation regarding first degree murder. Those are 
currently in the process of being approved. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You may as well sit there. 

How long do you have to prepare for a hearing 
when you get the binders, so to speak, like we have here? How 
far in advance? 

MR. ANGELE: Under our new procedure, we're given 
the hearing packets for the first two days, and they're mailed 
at our homes the Thursday prior to the week. That gives us the 
weekend to at least develop our strategies on the first let's 



say nine cases. 

The first day at the facility, we then take the 
cases of the third and fourth and fifth days home with us, or 
over to the hotels with us, and we research them there. 

It does give us adequate time since the new 
implementing of the sending of the documents to our homes, so we 
do have time to prepare. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They used to be given to you as 
you walked in? 

MR. ANGELE: That's correct. The first day it'd 
be there as we walked in, and we would then take the second 
day's home, and the third day's home on the second day, and so 
on and so on. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sometimes you have two 
commissioners at a hearing? 

MR. ANGELE: We have two commissioners and one 
deputy commissioner. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, say you get the book, and 
say you're the Chairman. Do the commissioners, when you get the 
things, do you discuss the case with each other maybe prior to 
the person talking? 

MR. ANGELE: No, there's not much discussion 
prior to. The format is basically into three separate parts. 
The presiding commissioner works on the crime itself and works 
on any sort of prior criminal activity and personal history, and 
then there are the post-conviction factors, such as the 
programming since the inmate was incarcerated. Then the third 
portion has to do with any letters of support or any letters of 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



8 






opposition/ along with another issue. 

But depending upon how much — what the volume is 
contained in the case, we do have discussions afterwards, 
obviously, when we make our decision. But there's not much 
prior to. We may discuss parts of the case. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, it's more of a human 
question. 

MR. ANGELE: Yeah, that way, but there's no 
decision made, obviously, until the hearing is over and we make 
our decision. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much is there to discuss 
about the crime? Isn't that like on a piece of paper, what they 
did? 

MR. ANGELE: It's all written down. We obviously 
want to get into maybe the mind set, or some of the aspects of 
the crime that are not contained in the particular report that's 
in front of us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're starting training on the 
battered women's syndrome; right? 

MR. HEPBURN: We have done continuous training 
for a number of years, and yes, we are continuing it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You did a lot of training, but 
didn't pay any attention to it, or what? 

MR. HEPBURN: I believe we did pay attention to 
it, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You didn't find anybody that 
suffered from it? 

MR. HEPBURN: Actually there have been cases in 



which parole has been granted regarding battered women's 
syndrome cases. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. Senator Hughes 

SENATOR HUGHES: Just one short question. 

I'm asking this of either one of you, or both of 
you, if you would like to answer. 

What's the cause of the high rate of recidivism 
of our parolees? And what plans do you as commissioner, you as 
a director, have on changing the tide that we see now on 
recidivism? 

MR. ANGELE: Are you specially talking about life 
prisoners . 

SENATOR HUGHES: I mean in general, in general. 

MR. HEPBURN: I should say that the 
commissioners, of course, only do hearings on life term 
prisoners, and the recidivism rate on life term prisoners is 
relatively low compared to the general population of parolees. 

And the programs are administered by the 
Department of Corrections, and there are a lot of support 
programs out in the community. But the Board does not control 
those programs; the Department of Corrections does. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But what I asked you is, what do 
you believe is the cause of the high rate of recidivism in our 
parolees? And what would you recommend from your point of view 
how to deal with it? 

You can make recommendations even though you may 
not be the one responsible for it. You have the greatest 
insight, I believe, or maybe you don't, so correct me if I'm 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



10 

wrong . 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, to be honest with you, 
because that hasn't fallen within the purview of the Board, I 
haven't given it probably sufficient thought to answer your 
question adequately. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think you should be 
making any recommendations? If not, why not? 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, we do make recommendations 
regarding parole conditions. And the reason why we put those 
conditions in there is to, hopefully, minimize recidivism and to 
increase the amount of supervision that parolees have once 
they've been released from the institution. 

We recommend in specific cases that they 
participate in some of these programs that are sponsored by 
CDC -- counselling programs, alcohol treatment programs — so 
that when they do get released, they have a support system 
outside the institution, and hopefully, we can minimize the 
number of cases where they end up back in the institution on a 
parole revocation. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think it would be helpful 
for you to make the kind of statement to the other divisions of 
Correction like you just made to me, because sometimes one 
member of the family doesn't speak to the other member of 
family, and consequently, nothing can get done when you're not 
totally involved with one segment of the Corrections system. 
You could make recommendations to another segment to help them, 
especially with the recidivism. 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, I agree with that statement, 












11 

and we do. We do work fairly closely with the Parole and 
Community Services Division of the Department of Corrections on 
those issues. We have regular meetings with them. And 
certainly, we have a significant input in the parole conditions 
when somebody gets released from prison. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And the cause for this is what, 
in your estimation? And can this cause be rectified? Yes or 
no? 

MR. HEPBURN: I don't think I have a good answer 
to that question. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But you have some thoughts, and 
sharing your thoughts, I think, would be helpful; right? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, I do. And as I indicated, I 
think the support system outside the institution is important. 
I think the programs for support, counselling programs, 
supervision while on parole, the close supervision that is 
provided by the Parole Division, all of those are important 
factors in reducing recidivism. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Commissioner, do you agree 
or disagree? 

MR. ANGELE: Yes, I do. And I also want to 
indicate that possible cause may be the issuing of parole date, 
or I should say paroling individuals back into the climates from 
which they came from. The law now states that the inmates shall 
be paroled to the county of last residence at the time of the 
offense. Paroling an inmate back to an area from whence he 
came, where he was involved in either gang activity or illegal 
activity, that may be obviously setting him into a position of 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



12 

recidivism. So, there might be something in terms of that area. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: I'm fine, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In several states the prisoner 
is given the opportunity to respond to information presented at 
the parole hearings from the DAs, victims, or their 
representatives, and the Youthful Parole Board does the same 
thing. 

Do you think that type of process would be 
equitable to allow the inmate to respond to statements that are 
made? 

MR. ANGELE: I would personally have no objection 
to investigating that particular system. However, we do have 
the latitude presently of asking the inmate to respond if the 
statements made by the victims or the victim's next of kin bring 
up issues are that were not on the table, and we've done that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How often is that done. 

MR. ANGELE: I would think from my experience ten 
percent of the time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's wrong with doing that? 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, we have the latitude to do 
it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know that, and you don't do 
it. So what's wrong with doing it? You have latitude to do a 
lot of stuff that you don't do. 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, the purpose of the victim 
next of kin being there, of course, is to just make comments 






13 

about their view of the crime and the inmate who committed the 
crime. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right. 

MR. HEPBURN: And it's not to be there to testify 
to the facts of the case. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right, and what's wrong with 
being able to respond to that or what the DAs say. 

If you allow them to do it ten percent of the 
time, what's wrong with allowing them to do it in every matter? 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, it would create a situation 
where there's more of -- more of an adversarial nature, I think, 
than there needs to be at that stage in the proceeding. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How? 

MR. HEPBURN: Because there would be an 
opportunity for debate back and forth over what the victim said. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No. You just said that you do 
it. You just don't do it all the time. So, it's like being a 
little bit pregnant. It's all right for somebody to be 
adversarial and not somebody else? There's no logic. 

MR. HEPBURN: We have a general practice of 
having the victim's next of kin making their statement at the 
conclusion of the hearing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I think that's fine to tell 
you what a loss it's been, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and 
what a bad person the prisoner is, or the DAs may say something. 

But I don't see anything wrong with, as long as 
you've got the gavel, allowing the person to make some kind of 
response to these comments. 



1 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



14 

MR. HEPBURN: We don't allow debate back and 
forth on anybody's closing statement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're not talking about debate. 
The commissioner here said about ten percent of the time, so ten 
percent of the time it's happening, and we aren't talking about 
debate. We aren't talking about who shot John, if you'll pardon 
the pun. 

We've gone through this, and you've never given a 
real answer that makes any sense, except you don't want to do 
it. 

MR. HEPBURN: Well, we don't want to set up a 
situation where there's argument about the- closing statements 
made by individuals at the conclusion of the hearing. We've got 
a district attorney who makes a statement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes. 

MR. HEPBURN: Once he's done — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I can't say, "The district 
attorney, in fact, if you look at page 17 in your book there, 
you'll find out what he's saying is inaccurate and that's not 
what happened?" 

MR. HEPBURN: No, they can say that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You just said they can't. You 
just said they can't respond. 

MR. HEPBURN: No, I was giving you the order that 
they make the closing statements at the conclusion of a hearing. 

The inmate's attorney goes after the DA, so they 
have an opportunity to make a statement at that point. The DA 
doesn't get to rebut what they said. 



15 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about after, say, the 
family? 

They do it at the Youthful Offender Board. I'm 
just missing why it works there, why it works in other states, 
and why you seem so hell-bent on not doing it here, that's all. 

I'm just missing the point, which probably should 
be better handled not at this hearing but at your budget 
hearing, which I think is a good place to handle the Board of 
Prison Terms. It's going to be at the budget hearing. We 
didn't really bring you here to do this, and I apologize for 
that. But we'll have those questions at the hearing on your 
budget. I apologize for getting on that issue here. 

But we have never gotten a satisfactory answer, 
except we really don't want to do it, which to me is not 
necessarily a good answer. 

Witnesses in support. 

Thanks, and we won't bother you any more, 
Mr. Chairman. 

MR. HEMBY: Mr. Chairman, Bill Hemby, 
representing the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs. 

My organization offers its support to the 
confirmation of Mr. Al Angele for this position. 

As a personal note, I've known Mr. Angele for 
some 18 years, and I have found him to be a person of great 
moral integrity, sound judgment, and fairness. I think he'd 
bring a lot of good aspects to the Board of Prison Terms and 
suggest that he — or ask that he be confirmed. 

Thank you. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



16 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 

Senator Polanco has sent communication that he's 
in support of Mr. Angele and Ms. Lawin. We have the National 
Latino Peace Officers Association and the Orange County 
Sheriff-Coroner. 

I'd like to ask you a question about the decision 
review process. How does that work? 

MR. ANGELE: Decision review basically goes over 
the decision made by the hearing panel to ensure that everything 
is done correctly, and that no issues of law have been missed. 
It ensures that the decision itself is based upon fact and law. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How can they review if it's 
based on fact? You were, if you will, the triers of fact. 
You're there listening to the person, listening to the victims, 
listening to the DA. How are they going to — 

MR. ANGELE: They go over the transcript for 
mistakes and errors, and correct any errors that there may be. 

Once again, there's more to the fact of law that 
they're concerned with. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the fact of law? You 
guys have almost plenipotentiary — I mean, you've got the 
ability to set a date or not. When would you be going beyond 
the law in setting a date? 

MR. ANGELE: There could have been some 
procedural errors made. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Like what? 

MR. ANGELE: Well, it depends on the particular 
case. An example could be if we did set a date, that we may not 



17 

have set the — picked the correct matrix. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You may not have what? 

MR. ANGELE: Selected the correct matrix in 
giving the estimated date of release. So, they go over that 
also. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They go over that also, and if 
you said January 1st, 2001, and according to the matrix it 
should have been January 1st, 2002, do they just deny the date, 
or do they just go back and say, you know, you set a date but 
you set the wrong date and it's got to be 2002? 

MR. ANGELE: It's just corrected. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do they overrule the 
findings? 

MR. ANGELE: Well, if findings are based upon the 
facts within the transcript, and they don't agree with our 
findings, what they're stating is that we may have not looked at 
all the issues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How the hell do they know? 
They weren't even there. 

MR. ANGELE: That's true; that's true. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition. 

MS. McGILL: Senator Burton and Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee, my name is Nancy McGill. I am a native 
Californian who has worked as an operating room nurse and 
resided in Sacramento County for the past 27 years. 

While I do not condone blanket parole, and I'm 
anxious about public safety, I am here to testify because I am 
gravely concerned about the lifer parole process with respect to 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 



due process, equal protection under the law, ex post facto 
clauses, and violation of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and 
unusual punishment clause. 

In quoting from the Capitol Alert , 8/11/2000, it 
states, "Davis has loaded the state parole board with 
conservative Republicans and ex-cops, and it's denied all but a 
handful of parole petitions. The very few that made it to 
Davis were either returned for a review and rejection or denied 
outright by the governor, making good on his no parole pledge 
uttered during a 1999 newspaper interview, 'If you take 
someone's life, forget it.'" 

With such views in public circulation, 
Mr. Angele and all the other board members ought to be 
scrutinizing their decisions to reassure everyone that they are 
participating in some kind of — not participating in some kind 
of charade to merely comply with the Governor's desires. 

The Board of Prison Terms has become a critical 
self-empowered body with a standard of being above the law. In 
testifying today, I take this opportunity to express my findings 
and conclusions based on the research I have conducted. 
Evidence continues to accumulate showing that the Board's 
process is not fair, and individual hearings display incidences 
that signal its unfairness to any reasonable person. My 
information about certain hearings conducted by Mr. Angele show 
is that he is part of the problem, not the solution. 

Mr. Angele has a law enforcement affiliation, as 
do the majority of the other BPT members, and he is from the 
L.A. area. His position on the Board detracts from the required 



19 



diversity of experience and viewpoint. 

It has long been recognized that a parole board 
should include well qualified people with experience in the 
fields of psychology, education, business, and human resources. 
It should also have a balance of race, gender, and place of 
residence that reflects that of the state as whole. Therefore, 
this position does not reflect a cross section of society as 
stated in PC 5075 and is in violation of the law and good 
practice. A similarly composed jury in a criminal court would 
be grounds for a mistrial. 

However, the Governor has stated that his 
judicial appointments should follow his political lead. My 
appointees should reflect my views. They are not there to be 
independent agents. They are there to reflect the sentiments 
expressed during the campaign. Obviously, the Governor feels 
the same way about his commissioners. 

While I realize the Governor appoints the 
commissioners, it is the responsibility of this Committee and 
the entire Senate to act as the check and balance portion of the 
system to ensure due process and fairness. Therefore, the 
Senate Rules Committee and the Senate have the power to send a 
clear message back to the Governor that he is not abiding by the 
law through their appointment denial. Continuing to disregard 
5075 makes you just as culpable as the Governor. 

It has come to my attention that the courts in 
Marin and San Luis Obispo Counties have instructed the Board 
that parole hearings must be heard. With a functioning Board of 
only five members, this requires the postponement of hearings in 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



20 

other counties. Therefore, there is no uniformity/ and the 
inmates in these counties are being denied equal protection 
under the law. Although the law does not specify a commitment 
to a particular timeframe, five years can't be exceeded. Thus, 
the hearing date is totally arbitrary. 

While it might be a strategy of Governor Davis 
not to appoint commissioners in order to reduce litigation and 
public scrutiny, the tactic remains unlawful. He should abide 
by 5075 and not hold deserving inmates as prisoners of politics. 

I readily admit that the overall conduct of the 
Board has improved from the Nielsen panel, but the behavior 
patterns remain inherently the same as those of past panels. 
There has merely been a shift in the denial focus due to 
legislative, judicial, and public scrutiny. 

In reviewing the 1999 Executive Report on Parole 
Review Decisions, I noted that inmates were given dates who had 
negative psych reports, a history of drug abuse, misconduct in 
prison, no employment plans, gang membership, and a previous 
criminal record. Yet to paraphrase Chairman Hepburn at his 
confirmation hearing on August 7th, he stated that an inmate is 
more likely to be found suitable for parole with no criminal 
history, disciplinary free behavior, self-help in the form of 
educational and/or vocational training, and positive 
programming. 

In the light of the Executive Report and 
Mr. Hepburn's testimony, one quickly finds themselves asking why 
these particular inmates were given dates in the first place. 
There are many inmates who have no previous criminal record, are 



21 

disciplinary free, have been employed during incarceration, have 
attended all the self-help classes available, have a positive 
psych report, and have parole plans including a job and 
residence. Why haven't they been given a date? One might 
conclude that those inmates were given dates simply because the 
Governor could declare them improvidently granted more easily. 

It is no wonder that many inmates and some 
attorneys are telling me they think that rather than listening 
to the inmate and considering the facts in the file, the panel's 
decision to deny parole is still predetermined. This certainly 
seems quite plausible when one considers the behavior patterns 
of the Board. Nearly all prisoners continue to be denied parole 
dates regardless of their suitability, and phony reasons are 
given for the denials. The March 1999 Declaration of Albert 
Leddy confirmed this suspicion. 

It is obvious that the composition of the panel 
is different from the '99 commissioners. However, deserving 
lifers are still being denied parole, regardless of their 
accomplishments . 

Parole is written into the law and has served 
over the years as an incentive for rehabilitating prisoners and 
making them productive members of society. It is still serious 
when the words in the law lose their meaning. The crime is 
being utilized as the excuse for denial, in addition to 
inadequate therapy and no vocational training. And the DA 
usually opposes parole. Since the DA is an elected position, it 
seems quite obvious that parole would be opposed. The matter 
becomes laughable when one recognizes their opposition speech is 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



22 

canned. 

Why does an inmate become more or less suitable 
for parole based on the composition or the political agenda of 
the panel? It is noted that the phrase, "unpredictable degree 
of threat" is being utilized as the general term in counselor 
evaluations. An attorney spoke with several counselors and 
staff members regarding this statement and was told that 
conscious decision had been made to use it in the reports to 
reduce liability. In other words, you can never really predict 
anyone's behavior relative to future conduct. So, this is a 
procedural distinction from earlier reporting policies and 
should not be interpreted by the Board as a behavioral change by 
the inmate. 

Now, you're probably asking what this has to do 
with Mr. Angele. He has only served on the Board about a year. 

The point I am attempting to make is that the 
situation is status quo. Chairman Hepburn not brought a fresh 
attitude to the job. Nothing has changed from '99, with the 
exception that dates are now being given to kidnappers and a few 
murderers. But, of course, the Governor can only take a date 
from a murderer. 

I am not a rocket scientist, but it appears quite 
evident from the information I have received that there is a 
pattern of behavior indicating that the Board is merely a puppet 
of the Governor. 

Title 15, Division 2, Chapter 2, Article 2, No. 
2120 states, "good time and work time credit shall be deducted 
from the DSL release date." An inmate's minimum eligible parole 






23 

date, MEPD, is calculated 85 percent of the sentence, at which 
time the parole hearings commence. Good time is calculated at 
the time a release date is given. It is easy to see that if the 
Board granted four months good time for every year served, 
serving 17 years, or 204 months, would amount to 22 years, 8 
months, which is outside the maximum matrix guidelines of the 
Judicial Council. 

There may be cases where longer terms are 
indicated, but these have to be justified. This has not been 
the case. It is important to remember that the burden of proof 
for extending a term is upon the state, not the inmate. 

It is common knowledge among the legal 
professionals and the Board that the Board has an unwritten 
policy of not considering inmates for parole unless the minimum 
court-dictated calendar time has been served: 15 to life for 
second degree, and 25 to life for first degree. Thus, there is 
no consideration given to good time, and all the hearings prior 
to the calendar years are unquestionably procedural. 

Why on earth are the taxpayers paying $95, 000 a 
year plus per diem, expenses and benefits for a commissioner to 
sit on a panel that has absolutely no intention of paroling the 
inmate until he's physically served the calendar time imposed by 
the court? This is a waste of tax dollars. 

It seems to me that the Board needs to either 
obey the law, or the laws need to be written. An underground 
policy is not acceptable. 

Because prisoners facing a parole hearing tend to 
be hopeful, and because the law says the panel should give them 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



24 

a parole date if they are suitable for parole, most enter the 
hearing room with an expectation that a date might be granted, 
or that some reasonable explanation will be given. But 
information about Mr. Angele's demeanor, statements, and 
decisions tell me that he lacks the ability and moral fiber to 
follow the requirement of the law. So when Mr. Angele appears . 
rude, disinterested, bored, or makes derogatory remarks, the 
inmates are offended. At the very least, the commissioner 
should remain attentive. 

There is no need to have a board that is so 
flagrant in their application of law that the courts are 
compelled to move in. I would like to point out that under 
1170, the inmates are incarcerated for punishment not 
rehabilitation. 

Panel members are responsible for articulating 
their reason in any denial of parole because the Board must show 
facts that support any finding of unsuitability. Form 1000 does 
not accomplish this goal. The burden of proof for suitability 
is not that of the inmate who has reached the minimum eligible 
parole date. The commissioners must be able to show they are 
basing decisions solely on a prisoner's suitability for parole 
and give them a chance to respond to any new evidence cited by 
the Board as a reason to deny parole. This is almost laughable 
because after 15 to 25 years, how could there possibly be any 
more new evidence? 

Victim testimony is taken as gospel without 
investigation and becomes a matter of record. Subsequently, the 
inmate is forced to deal with possible inaccurate information at 



25 

future hearings. 

The conclusions have nothing to do with facts. 
Therefore, it may be time for the Legislature to revisit the 
entire question of victim involvement in parole hearings. 

At this point, it should also be noted that 
inaudibles and admissions in Board hearing transcripts continue 
to be problematic. 

If given a date, the inmate is reviewed by three 
separate panels. The Board meets with the inmate, then later a 
second BPT panel reviews the information. 

I would also like to add that during the time 
between the prison hearing and the other two reviews, it appears 
that documentation is added to the file without the consent or 
knowledge of the inmate or his attorney. 

If an inmate is given a date, the file should be 
seized immediately by an independent party, and every single 
page copied and returned to CDC. Then, if the date is denied 
either by the BPT or the governor, any additional information 
added will be obvious. 

In a court of law, we don't let jurors hustle 
more information from outside the courtroom to help them make a 
decision. Although a Board hearing is a quasi-judicial event, 
the same rules should apply. 

Finally, the Governor and his team of lawyers 
review the information a third time. 

At the recission hearing of three inmates granted 
a parole date in '99, the DA and sheriff opposed parole based on 
the violence and circumstances of the original crime, not on the 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



26 

prisoner's present suitability for release. The Governor 
concurred, and the date was denied. Yet, when sentencing the 
inmate, the judge took into consideration the nature of the 
crime. The crime will always remain constant. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much longer? 

MS. McGILL: [Shows pages left to be read] The 
inmate can't change that factor. Does this mean there will be 
more lawsuits and wasted tax dollars? 

The BPT is an unfair panel. At the opening 
session of the Democratic Convention in L.A., Davis spoke of 
fairness and justice as hallmarks of his party. However, we are 
not here to discuss the Governor nor the Board. We are here to 
discuss the confirmation of Mr. Angele. 

It has been my intent to point out to you that 
the Board in general, and Mr. Angele specifically, are not fair 
and impartial. Thus, Governor Davis' statement is nothing more 
than political propaganda and a crock. 

This information and similar opinions which seem 
to indicate a pattern of behavior were received at my request. 
Mr. Angele has wrongly explained that the Board does not grant 
parole. He claims the Board only finds a prisoner suitable for 
parole, and that granting parole is up to the Governor. That is 
contrary to Penal Code 3040, which clearly states the function 
of the Board is to grant parole. 

So, how can Mr. Angele do his job if he doesn't 
know what his job is? And how can the Board of Prison Terms 
command the respect of prisoners when one of their commissioners 
is so clearly mistaken. 



27 

Inmate Williams was told that he will never get 
out of prison, and it doesn't matter what he does inside the 
prison. They discussed the murder, his past history, and his 
physical stature. What on earth does a man's size have to do 
with his ability to stay sober, hold a job, be a good citizen, 
and manage his anger? The inmate has absolutely no control over 
the size of his hands or his height. Even though the inmate has 
completed all the panel's recommendations, they continue to deny 
parole based on the same factors, Form 1000. 

Mr. Angele must know that it destroys hope to 
tell an inmate who has completed all of the parole board's 
recommendations that the panel's denying him a date based on his 
appearance. 

Commissioners have a responsibility to prison 
staff as well as to inmates because a person who has been 
unlawfully and unreasonably denied hope can become a dangerous 
prisoner . 

It is also interesting to note that the Board 
makes recommendations for therapy that are nonexistent at a 
prisoner's institution and even within the system. I am 
referencing the Psychotherapy Memorandum of 08/13/99. 
Psychotherapy may be provided to lifer inmates when mental 
health professionals determine it is needed. The mental health 
staff make the recommendation, not the Board of Prison Terms. 
Psychotherapy is not provided within CDC to lifer inmates to 
deal with their commitment offenses. 

It would be most helpful if the panel was 
required to be familiar with the programs and services that are 



1 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



28 

actually offered at any given prison, then tailor their 
recommendations accordingly. 

It's doesn't matter what the trial judge and jury 
found. The prisoner's efforts at self-improvement? Never 
enough. The psychologists' and counselors' reports? 
Discounted. Other prison staff members' input doesn't count 
unless it's negative. The sentencing matrix and suitability 
guidelines? Ignored. An unbiased parole board? I don't think 
so . 

The rare Board decision of suitability for 
parole? Overruled. If the Governor has stated that no murderer 
will be paroled, and thus far he has lived up to his commitment 
with the exception of one very safe battered female syndrome 
case, why do we need a Board of Prison Terms to hear murderers? 
This one release came only about because of growing pressure 
from inmates, lawyers, certain lawmakers, judges, and editorial 
writers. It was a safe political maneuver in an effort to prove 
he reviews each case on individual merit, and a blanket policy 
does not exist. 

However, Governor Davis has taken it upon himself 
to act as judge and jury, while overriding the court's decision 
at the time of sentencing, so the BPT is strictly a procedural 
board and a waste of tax dollars for a game of power and control 
to enhance political gain for himself. 

It is time the Senate Rules Committee and the 
Senate utilized their power and discretion in the name of 
justice and due process. Do not allow Davis to advance his 
political career at the expense of human lives who are deserving 



29 

of parole. 

So, I ask you to have the intestinal fortitude to 
stand up to the Governor and Mr. Angele's unlawful behavior. 
Please take back your power of providing checks and balances to 
the system while protecting the right to due process and abiding 
by the law without burdening the taxpayer. 

Do not confirm the appointment of Commissioner 
Angele. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have another copy of 
that? 

MS. McGILL: Yes, sir, I do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in opposition. 

MR. NOVEY: Chairman Burton, Senators, just a 
point of privilege here. 

Ms. Hughes, thank you for your many years of 
wisdom and thought in the Legislature. I hate to see you go. 
We're still stuck with some of the old timers. 

Good afternoon. My name is Donald Novey. I'm the 
President of the California Coalition of Law Enforcement 
Associations and sundry other groups. 

This is probably the most difficult thing one has 
to do, is to oppose a candidate for appointment in any 
administration, and this is the fifth that I've had to deal 
with. 

Mr. Angele was probably a decent law enforcement 
officer on the street. However, representing 31 groups, I think 
one of the questions in the witness before the previous witness, 
it came up to, where was Mr. Angele's support? And I think 



1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



30 

everyone noticed that it was very diminimus . Even in Orange 
County, the home of Senator Johnson, I didn't see the Orange 
County Deputy Sheriffs; I didn't see Santa Ana; I didn't see 
Anaheim. 

There's probably some reasons for that. I think 
there'll be people speaking after me that will bring that to 
your attention. I want to keep this brief. I don't want to get 
into personal assaults, and it's not what this is about. 

This is about is this person qualified to serve 
in this position? I say no on behalf of 100,000 peace officers 
in the State of California. 

There's been questions about the operations that 
Mr. Angele was involved with in his previous organization, COPS. 
And I think those have never be satisfactorily answered. I 
think this Committee should thoroughly review those. 

I don't have the answers myself. When I get law 
enforcement agency after law enforcement agency asking me, why 
is this person allowed to proceed to this position, and we've 
not thoroughly investigated some of his supposed actions in this 
other organization, and I'm not condemning Mr. Angele in what 
he's done presently on the Board of Prison Terms, by the way,. 
but his past actions. I think they need to be answered. 

Probably the most egregious, and I'll just speak 
to that, was the soliciting of funds for supposed COPS 
organizations on the street from minority communities. And the 
upshot was the investigations, I think, went on in Orange 
County, that Mr. Angele 's former organization had supported an 
element that if the monies weren't contributed, your 9-1-1 calls 



31 

would not be returned to your minority communities. 

I think this is serious allegation. I've never 
received real answer on it. Mr. Angele could probably put that 
to bed today. I don't know. I've never talked to the gentleman 
about it; he's never talked to me. 

We invited Mr. Angele 's organization to the 
statewide law enforcement meeting this month. I had original 
plans to be in Florida to enjoy a vacation in the warm sun down 
there, and probably testify as an expert on riots. 

I passed that over to attend this wonderful 
hearing today, sir. 

That, in essence, is my testimony. I don't want 
anything else in reference to Mr. Angele, whether something to 
do with tie tacks, or whatever, and a memorial commission, 
because I don't have enough knowledge. 

But I do know of this one incident, and it's been 
something that's had deep negative palates of my peers in law 
enforcement, and we don't have an answer. I think it's 
incumbent upon the leadership of the people of California, the 
State Senate, before the new one comes in next week. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Mr. Novey. 

Witnesses in opposition? 

MR. LeBAS : Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name 
Albert E. LeBas. Last name is L-e capital B-a-s. I am 
currently the Executive Director of the California Peace Officer 
Memorial Foundation. 

Mr. Novey pretty succinctly summed up the 



32 

the organization that Mr. Angele represented for about 25 
years . 

Without boring you further, the problems that we 
have had over the years I distributed to the Senators, a 
two-and-a-half page document. Rather than read that to you, or 
if you'd rather, I can read it to you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, thank you. I accept your 
offer not to. 

MR. LeBAS : Not to, very good. I thought you 
might . 

Our foundation, with a 25-member Board of 
Directors, has membership representing well over 98 percent of 
law enforcement people in the State of California, both 
management and rank-and-file. 

I can tell you without equivocation that they, to 
a man and organization, oppose the appointment and confirmation 
of Mr. Angele as a member of the Board of Prison Terms. 

If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer 
them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I have none. 

Other witnesses in opposition, please. 

Would you like to respond to, I guess, the basic 
comments of Mr. LeBas and Mr. Novey? 

MR. ANGELE: Basically, I've never been asked to 
attend any meetings in order to defend any of the allegations. 

There was an incident. I believe they're talking 
about the one in Orange County that had to do, in fact, with an 
individual who was soliciting for three separate organizations 



33 

and making the inference that, and I think primarily in the 
Hispanic neighborhood, that if you do not contribute, you, when 
you call 9-1-1, nobody would answer. 

I'm not convinced at this point because I have 
not seen the arrest report. There was an arrest made. But 
whether at the particular time they were soliciting for COPS or 
another organization, like I say, there were three groups. 

However, this much, just prior to my retirement, 
and this occurred about nine years ago, was the first time I 
was made aware of it. There was a reporter that came to my 
office and brought it to our attention. And if this is the 
case, it involved a gentleman by the name of Richard Levine . 
And the only Richard Levine I had ever heard of was an attorney 
that worked for a gentleman that I knew in Marina Del Rey. 

This has not been brought to our attention 
whatsoever. And I might add that we had later found out that 
the individual was arrested in a sting operation, again, if this 
is the individual they're talking about, that the promoter we 
used assisted. 

So, I mean, one of my problems obviously, is if 
you don't create the dialogue among people, pick up a phone and 
say, "Here's your problem. Let's talk about it," nothing gets 
discussed, and it festers over years and years and years. 

That is my explanation over the incident that 
Mr. Novey talks about. 

I'll answer any guestions you have regarding any 
of these issues. Like I say, if there's an opportunity to sit 
and discuss these issues among these individuals who have -- who 



34 

want to bring them up, they're all explainable. That's all I can 
say. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is the — 

MR. ANGELE: I will add one other thing, that 
during our tenure, as far as the solicitation, we have had 
individuals fired and then arrested by initiating our own police 
reports. There was a problem; we tried to get on top of it. 
And I'm sure COPS is doing the same thing today. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions? Move the 
confirmation. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 
Senator O'Connell. 

SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson No. Governor Burton. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON : Aye . 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Three to one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. ANGELE: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sharon Lawin. 

MS. LAWIN: Good afternoon, Senators. Thank you 
for the opportunity to introduce myself. 

Before coming to the Board of Prison Terms on 
January 3rd of this year, I proudly served the members of the 



35 

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association for 
nearly 25 years. As Executive Director of the organization/ I 
served — which the organization has commonly been referred to 
as PPOA. I was the chief spokesperson for negotiations, 
covering wages, hours, and working conditions; responsible for 
all business and administrative aspects of the organization, 
including member representation. Served as liaison to state, 
county, and local agencies, other public employee unions, as 
well as peace officer groups. 

I served as Vice President of the Los Angeles 
County Federation of Labor, member of their COPE, or Political 
Education Committee, and as a member of various committees 
within the International AFL-CIO. 

These duties are but a sampling of the functions 
that I performed as Executive Director of PPOA, and I chose them 
in the hopes of providing you with some idea of the background 
that I bring to the Board of Prison Terms. 

My experience and education affords me an unique 
perspective. On the one hand, I have acquired a strong 
sensitivity to the concerns of the law enforcement community 
with respect to the criminal justice system. 

On the other hand, a major portion of my duties 
involved asserting the rights of individuals or their 
representative employee organization, in challenges to actions 
taken by public agencies. 

Those activities most certainly have given me an 
appreciation of the need to respect individual rights and the 
administration of justice. 



36 

In summation, I bring to the Board of Prison 
Terms nearly three decades of working with the laws, codes, and 
regulations that govern interactions between people and 
organizations. I bring to this position a high standard of 
personal integrity and the tenacity to handle the 
responsibilities of the position as commissioner in a fair and 
conscientious manner. 

I look forward to being found suitable for 
confirmation as a commissioner on the Board of Prison 
Terms . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any suggested 
changes in the way that the Board operates internally? 

MS. LAWIN: I say unfortunately to begin with 
because everything takes money. 

I believe that the two areas that the Board could 
be better would be in terms of legal and in terms of 
investigations . 

And it's not that either of those divisions are 
doing poor jobs; they are not. It's just that there is a great 
deal of work, and there are too few investigators and too few 
attorneys assisting the Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Those are the only things you 
see? 

MS. LAWIN: Those are, I think, primary issues. 
There are a number of issues that we have that are ongoing that 
are being addressed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Such as? 



37 

MS. LAWIN: Such as, Commissioner Angele already 
pointed to them, BWS . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Vanilla ice cream. 

MS. LAWIN: Those are internal issues that need 
to be addressed, and they have been, and they are being. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When you ask for information, 
do you get it? 

MS. LAWIN: We do. I have requested 
investigations on several cases, and they have been begun. I 
have gotten results on them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They begin a lot of stuff, but 
they don't seem to finish, at least when we're asking them. 

MS. LAWIN: Yes, I have had them finished. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're doing better than we're 
doing. We should put you on the budget subcommittee. 

What's your feeling about the Board following the 
process that several other states and Youthful Correction does, 
to have inmates be able to comment after statements are made, I 
would assume, in opposition to he or she getting a date? 

MS. LAWIN: I'm not opposed to changing the order 
in which the inmates, victims' next of kin make their statements 
to the Board. 

If you're speaking of a rebuttal, I don't believe 
that that serves anyone very well. 

But if you're speaking of having the inmate -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If they're making the 
statement, ipso facto there would be rebuttal in it, but I guess 
you couldn't have an opening, then something else in rebuttal so 



38 

they would be able to make their case plus respond, if they're 
speaking after. 

MS. LAWIN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As opposed to like opening as a 
comment . 

Senator Johnson. Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Following the questions I asked 
the previous commissioner and the kind of responses that I got, 
since you've been in law enforcement for quite sometime, what 
kind of enlightenment could you give us in terms of criteria 
with the Board of Prison Terms would use to determine whether 
parolees pose a danger to the safety of others? And what kind 
of criteria should be made specific to this regulation? 

MS. LAWIN: First of all, Senator, I have not 
been in law enforcement. I have been the head of a police 
union. I am not a peace officer and have never been a peace 
officer . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're a pie card. 

MS. LAWIN: If you say so. I've been called many 
things, and that's not one of them. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I hear you. She's the boss. 
Nothing wrong with being a boss. 

MS. LAWIN: Thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What did you think about the 
question that I asked about sharing knowledge. You know, even 
though they told me that they don't have anything to do with 
this because the Board of Prison Term doesn't deal with the same 
kind of prisoners, don't you think your service on this 



39 

commission will equip you with information that should be shared 
with other correctional divisions? And to what extent are you 
committed to do that kind of sharing, or do you want to stay in 
our own little box? 

MS. LAWIN: I certainly an advocate for sharing 
information. I served on many labor-management committees, 
because it seemed the most effective way to deal with issues was 
by incorporating both management and, in that case, union views, 
points of view. 

And I don't intend to stay in a box. At this 
point, I'm not certain how much expertise I have acquired in 
last 11 months, but I'm certainly more than willing to share it 
with anyone else. 

I always advocate open lines of communication. I 
think that BPT has that certainly with and Agency and CDC. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. That's the kind of 
response I was seeking before. 

MS. LAWIN: Thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I will move. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any idea what the 
rule of the Board should be in implementing Prop. 36? Do you 
guys have to deal with that thing? 

MS. LAWIN: I can respond generally that the 
Board has developed proposals which they're working with the 
Agency on for the implementation of processes for 36. 

As to the details, I'm not able to deal with 
those. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mr. Chairman, do you know when 



40 

they're going to have that? 

MR. HEPBURN: Senator, we have a meeting on it 
this afternoon, as a matter of fact, at Agency to discuss budget 
proposals and plans, so we're working on that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know whether you'd be 
able to share them with us? How is it going to work? If it 
ends up over there, who's going to make the determination? 
You're going to make like a proposal to Agency, who will make 
its findings to the Governor? 

MR. HEPBURN: It would have to go through Agency, 
and then to the Governor's office, what ever the plan is going 
to be. 

It'll affect us in parole revocations and in how 
we deal with cases where there is a drug violation, no violence 
in the past, and things of that nature. And it will probably 
affect — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can't revoke somebody for 
basically failing a urine test? 

MR. HEPBURN: Yes, assuming they have — they 
fit all the other criteria. And then they'll be referred -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much of the prison 
population would be affected? 

MR. HEPBURN: CDC did an estimate, and they 
figure it'll probably affect about 10,000 cases of potential 
parole revocations. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When would you have something 
that we could look at? We really can't look at anything. 

MR. HEPBURN: As soon as it gets through Agency 



41 

and the Governor's office. I'm not sure how long that'll take. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When does your term run out? 

But you have moved your, what, your points? 

MR. HEPBURN: We've made proposals to agencies 
already. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right, thanks. 

You were involved in the case of an inmate who 
got a parole date and was required to have a new hearing because 
of the one tape recording. He was found unsuitable at new 
hearing. Then he was found suitable again and granted another 
parole date, in April 2002. 

Then, during a progress hearing, he was notified 
there would be no progress hearing, that the case was referred 
back for a rescission hearing, gravity of commitment offense 
cited as the reason for the referral. 

Who the hell makes those decisions? I would 
assume that you all had the gravity of the offense before you 
when you did something, when you set the date. Who are these 
people that decide that you people don't know what you're doing? 

MS. LAWIN: Decision Review, if you're speaking 
of Decision Review, consists of several different groups. We 
have deputy commissioners who review certain aspects of our 
hearings. We have the attorneys within BPT . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They assumed you didn't know 
what you were doing. 

MS. LAWIN: I don't know that that's their 
position. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What else could it be? In 



42 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What else could it be? In 
other words, if it is whatever the crime is, you're sitting 
there, and you had the documents. And you've got the DA, and 
you've got victim, and you've got the perpetrator, and you 
nevertheless set a date. 

And they say, "Oh, the gravity of the crime, it's 
like you didn't take anything into consideration." They're just 
allowed to substitute their judgment for yours? 

MS. LAWIN: No, because then it takes Board 
members who have to agree with Decision Review's decision 
before -- if you're speaking of taking a date — before that 
date can be taken. So it's not just Decision Review's position. 
It then is reviewed by Board members to decide if they concur or 
not with the decision. 

I don't know the individual you're speaking of, 
but if gravity of the offense was cited, it may be that there 
wasn't enough on record to indicate that gravity of the offense 
had been dealt with sufficiently during the hearing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Isn't that one of the things 
they talk about? 

MS. LAWIN: Yes, it is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Like the heiniousness of the 
crime, so to speak? 

MS. LAWIN: Yes, it is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they feel you didn't deal 
with it enough? Like you saw it a different way? 

MS. LAWIN: It could be. I don't know, again, 
which case specifically. 



43 

plain sounds silly to me. 

I mean, somebody ought to lose their job behind 
it one way or the other. 

I mean, if you were making a determination, and 
you didn't have accurate information or sufficient information 
about the gravity of the offense, then whoever it was involved 
in the preparation of that material ought to be looking for a 
new line of work, like maybe in the automotive appearance area, 
or something like that. I mean, this is crazy. 

And then it sounds like you're saying they can 
change arbitrarily, after the fact, the decision, and then you 
get to say, "Well, do we really want them to change our 
decision?" 

MS. LAWIN: They make a recommendation, Senator. 
Then, if they made a recommendation that the date not be granted 
after the fact, it then has to be concurred with by 
commissioners such as myself. 

The commissioners would then review the case, 
review what Decision Review has done — 

SENATOR JOHNSON: What the hell are we paying you 
a fat salary for? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's a generic "you". 

MS. LAWIN: I understand that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This, again, is something that 
should be left to the budget committee, but the process is 
bizarre . 

I would have less problem with no "see you later" 
than the people that are sitting there. And no bleeding hearts 



44 

I've found. You know, you try to think of bleeding hearts, 
Bordano, and we all know what a bleeding heart he is. 

And sets a date. Well, you didn't really 
consider the fact that it was a multiple mutilated who knows 
what . 

I mean, Senator Johnson's right. Either somebody 
didn't give you the information, the DA didn't tell you, the 
victim's family didn't tell you, your staff didn't tell you, or 
else they're saying, "Hell, you didn't know what you were 
talking about. We're going to say don't do it." 

Then it goes back to somebody else to say, "Well, 
even though they said don't do it, we think they ought to do 
it." Then he says, "Don't do it anyway," which gets to the 
lady's position that I often wonder why we spend money on Board 
of Prison Terms. One time we actually cut them out of the 
budget . 

I think these are issues that are clearly going 
to be — and again, you just happen to be sitting here; could 
have been anybody else — that are going to be looked at in the 
budget, as far as I'm concerned, if we're not happy with the 
process . 

We aren't saying to let everybody out. It's with 
the process, how they do business. There's no need in having 
them because it is an absolute bureaucratic nightmare. The only 
reason that it is put up with is because you're dealing with 
criminals. If you were dealing with an ordinary citizen, I'm 
trying to think of the worst bureaucracy there is, but I mean, 
just the way they do business is bizarre, absolutely bizarre. 



45 



Witnesses in support. 

Are you going to repeat what you told me in L.A.? 

MR. VOGTS: Senator, I'll be brief. 

My name is Jim Vogts. I am today representing 
the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, 
the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, the Association of 
Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, Long Beach Police Officers 
Association, Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement, 
the International Union of Police Associations, and believe it 
or not, I am also representing Don Novey and the California 
Correctional Peace Officers Association, and the California 
Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you getting paid by each 
one, or is this pro bono? 

MR. VOGTS: Senator, in about one more sentence 
I'm answer that question. 

I'm also representing Miguel Contreras, the L.A. 
County Federation of Labor, Bob McCloud, President of PESO, the 
Public Employees Service Organizations. 

Had these folks not asked me to represent them 
today, I would be here anyway on my own. Sharon Lawin is a 
personal friend of mine, which I will attest to in just a 
moment . 

I have spoken with the heads of each of these 
organizations. It's notable that the last two, the L.A. County 
Federation of Labor and PESO, Public Employees Service 
Organizations, whose membership, by the way, comes from a wide 
geographic area in the state, northern, middle, and southern 



geographic area in the state, northern, middle, and southern 
California, they all concur with my assessment of Sharon's 
ability to do this job. We all agree that in this particular 
case, the best man for the job is a woman. 

I would venture to say, I've known Sharon 
probably, aside from her husband and parents, at least as well 
as anyone else in the world has ever known Sharon. I met Sharon 
over 25 years ago when she first came to the Professional Peace 
Officers Association, as, as I recall, an insurance clerk. I 
was on the Board of Directors at the time. 

During the succeeding 25 years, I have grown to 
know Sharon very well, both professionally and personally. Her 
integrity, tenacity, intelligence, thoughtfulness are all beyond 
reproach. I would venture to say that there is no one in the 
law enforcement community, and no one in the labor community, 
who would oppose the confirmation of Sharon to this position, 
including those who don't know Sharon. 

Those who do know Sharon, I can assure you, in 
both communities would support her confirmation. 

As I say, all of her attributes — I could on and 
on except that I'm limited by my own personal vocabulary. I 
can't think of good qualities that should not be attributed to. 
Sharon Lawin, both professionally and personally. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Our limited antsyness is 
because some of us have to catch a plane. 

MR. VOGTS: I understand. 

I think her appointment should be — we're proud 
of Governor Davis for the appointment. 



47 

It should be a source of pride for him. 
Senators, you, too, can except a degree of pride by confirming 
or recommending to the full Senate her confirmation. 

I do want to thank, Senator Burton, you and 
Nettie, because I have interrupted your days on more than one 
occasion regarding this confirmation. The patience that you've 
extended to me are deeply appreciated. 

Thank you very much, and we would all ask for 
your aye vote in support of Sharon's confirmation. 

Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would assume every group is 
there. Anyone else? Tim. 

MR. YARYAN: I'll be very brief. It's kind of 
hard to top Jim's compliments to Sharon. 

Tim Yaryan, representing the Association for Los 
Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Los Angeles Police Protective League, 
Los Angeles Probation Union, AFSCME Local 685, and Riverside 
Sheriffs . 

I could say ditto to Jim. I've known Sharon for 
over 15 years. I know her to be a very caring, compassionate, 
thoughtful, fair, and tough-minded lady. I can't think of 
anybody more temperamentally suited, more intellectually suited 
for this job than Sharon. 

I urge your aye vote on confirmation. Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support? 

MR. LeBAS : I heard your admonishment, Senator. 

Al LeBas, representing the California Peace 
Officer Memorial Foundation. 



48 

I, too, have known Sharon for 25 years. She 
brings to the Board of Prison Terms a person with the greatest 
professional credentials, both professionally and ethical. 

The group that I represent heartily endorse her 
confirmation to the Board of Prison Terms. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

Any other witnesses in support? 

Witnesses in opposition? Hearing none, moved by 
Senator Hughes. 



SENATOR HUGHES: 
CHAIRMAN BURTON 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR HUGHES 
SECRETARY WEBB 
SENATOR KNIGHT 
SECRETARY WEBB 



Thank you. 
Call the roll. 

Senator Hughes. 

Aye. 

Hughes Aye. Senator Knight. 

Aye. 

Knight Aye. Senator O'Connell. 
SENATOR O'CONNELL: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: O'Connell Aye. Senator Johnson, 
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Governor Burton. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Without objection, Ms. McGill 
will submit more things for the record on this matter. Thank 
you, ma'am. 

Thank you and congratulations. 
MS. LAWIN: Thank you. 



49 



[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 3:00 P.M.] 
— 00O00 — 



50 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of /_.'-.- ^-^v , 2000. 



,/Z 



1 , EVELYN J. MIZAK 



V 



,/ 



Shorthand Reporter 



51 



Angele Testimony 

Senator Burton and members of the Senate Rules Committee 

My name is Nancy McGill 

I am a native Californian who has worked as an operating room nurse and resided in 
Sacramento county for the past 27 years. While 1 do not condone blanket parole and I am 
anxious about public safety, I am here to testify because I am gravely concerned about 
the lifer parole process with respect to due process, equal protection under the law, ex 
post facto clauses, and violation of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual 
punishment clause. 

In quoting from the Capitol Alert 8-1 1-2000, it states: "Davis has loaded the state parole 
board with conservative Republicans and ex-cops, and it has denied all but a handful of 
parole petitions. The very few that made it to Davis were either returned for review and 
rejection or denied outright by the governor, making good on his no-parole pledge, 
uttered during a 1999 newspaper interview: 'If you take someone else's life, forget it'." 
With such views in public circulation, Mr. Angele and all of the other Board members 
ought to be scrutinizing their decisions to reassure everyone that they are not 
participating in some kind of charade to merely comply with the Governor's desires. 

The Board of Prison Terms has become a critical, self-empowered body with a standard 
of being above the law. In testifying today, I take this opportunity to express my 
findings and conclusions based on the research I have conducted. Evidence continues to 
accumulate, showing that the Board's process is not fair, and individual hearings display 
incidents that signal its unfairness to any reasonable person. My information about 
certain hearings conducted by Mr. Angele show that he is part of the problem not the 
solution! 

****Mr Angele has a law enforcement affiliation as do the majority of the other BPT 
members and he is from the LA area. Hence, his position on the Board detracts from the 
required diversity of experience and viewpoint. It has long been recognized that a parole 
Board should include well qualified people with experience in the fields of psychology, 
education, business, and human resources. It should also have a balance of race, gender 
and place of residence that reflects the state as a whole. Therefore, this position does not 
reflect a cross-section of society as stated in PC 5075 and is in violation of the law and 
good practice A similarly composed jury in a criminal court would be grounds for a 
mistrial 

However, the Governor has stated that his judicial appointments should follow his 
political lead My appointees should reflect my views They are not there to be 
independent agents They are there to reflect the sentiments that I expressed during the 
campaign Obviously the Governor feels the same way about his Commissioners' While 
1 realize the governor appoints the Commissioners, it is the responsibility of this 



A2 

committee and the entire Senate to act as the check and balance portion of the system to 
ensure due process and fairness Therefore, the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate 
has the power to send a clear message back to the governor that he is not abiding by the 
law through their appointment denial Continuing to disregard 5075 makes you just as 
culpable as the governor. 

It has come to my attention that the courts in Mann and San Luis Obispo counties have 
instructed the Board that parole hearings must be held. With a functioning Board of only 
5 members, this requires the postponement of hearings in other counties. Therefore, there 
is no uniformity and the inmates in these counties are being denied equal protection under 
the law Although the law does not specify a commitment to a particular time frame, 5 
years can't be exceeded Thus, a hearing date is totally arbitrary. While it might be a 
strategy of Governor Davis not to appoint Commissioners in order to reduce litigation 
and public scrutiny, the tactic remains unlawful. He should abide by 5075 and not hold 
deserving inmates as prisoners of politics! 

1 readily admit that the overall conduct of the current Board has improved from the 
Nielsen panel, but the behavior patterns remain inherently the same as those of past 
panels There has merely been a shift in the demal focus due to legislative, judicial, and 
public scrutiny. In reviewing the 1999 Executive Report on Parole Review Decisions, I 
noted that inmates were given dates who had negative psych reports, a 
history of drug abuse, misconduct in prison, no employment plans, gang membership, 
and a previous criminal record. Yet, to paraphrase Chairman Hepburn at his 
confirmation hearing on August 7, he stated that an inmate is more likely to be found 
suitable for parole with no criminal history, disciplinary free behavior, self-help in the 
form of education and/or vocational training, and positive programming. 

In light of the Executive Report and Mr. Hepburn's testimony, one quickly finds 
tnemselves asking why these particular inmates were given dates in the first place? There 
are many inmates who have no previous criminal record, are disciplinary free, have been 
employed during incarceration, have attended all the self-help classes available, have a 
positive psych report, and have parole plans including a job and residence. So, why 
haven't they been given a date? One might conclude that those inmates were given dates 
simply because the governor could declare them improvidently granted more easily. It is 
no wonder that many inmates and some attorneys are telling me they think that rather 
tnan listening to the inmate, and considering the facts in the file, the Panel's decision to 
asm parole is still predetermined. This certainly seems quite plausible when one 
considers the behavior patterns of the Board. Nearly all prisoners continue to be denied 
parole dates regardless of their suitability and phony reasons are given for the denials 
Tne March 1999, Declaration of Albert Leddy confirmed this suspicion. 

It is obvious that the composition of the current panel is different from the 
Commissioners m '99. However, deserving lifers are still being denied parole regardless 
of their accomplishments. Parole is written into the law and has served over the years as 



53 



A3 

an incentive for rehabilitating prisoners and making them productive members of 
society. It is really serious when the words in the law lose their meaning! The crime is 
being utilized as the excuse for denial in addition to inadequate therapy, and no 
vocational training. And, the DA usually opposes parole. Since the DA is an elected 
position, it seems quite obvious that parole would be opposed. The matter becomes 
laughable when one recognizes that their opposition speech is canned. Why does an 
inmate become more or less suitable for parole based on the composition or the political 
agenda of the panel? 

It is noted that the phrase "unpredictable degree of threat" is being utilized as a general 
term in counselor evaluations. An attorney spoke with several Counselors and staff 
members regarding this statement and was told that a conscious decision had been made 
to use it in the reports to reduce liability. In other words, you can never really predict 
anyone's behavior relative to future conduct. So, this is a procedural distinction from 
earlier reporting policies and should not be interrupted by the Board as a behavioral 
change by the inmate. 

Now, you are probably asking what this has to do with Mr. Angele? He has only served 
on the Board for about a year. The point that I am attempting to make is that the situation 
is status quo . Chairman Hepburn has not brought a fresh attitude to the job! Nothing 
has changed from 1999 with the exception that dates are now being given to kidnappers 
and a few murderers. But, of course, the Governor can only take a date from a murderer. 
I am not a rocket scientist, but it appears quite evident from the information I have 
received that there is a pattern of behavior indicating that the Board is merely a puppet of 
the Governor. 

Title 15, Division 2, Chapter 2, Article 2, #2120 states "good time and work time credit 
shall be deducted from the DSL release date" An inmate's Minimum Eligible Parole 
Date (MEPD) is calculated at 85% of the sentence at which time the parole hearings 
commence Good time is calculated at the time a release date is given. It is easy to see 
that if the Board granted 4 months good time for every year served, serving 1 7 years or 
204 months would amount to 22 years 8 months which is outside the maximum Matrix 
guidelines of the Judicial Council. There maybe cases where longer terms are indicated, 
but these have to be justified. This has not been the case. It is important to remember 
that the burden of proof for extending a term is upon the state, not the inmate. 

It is common knowledge among the legal professionals that the Board has an unwritten 
policy of not considering an inmate for parole unless the minimum court dictated 
calendar tune has been served (15 to life for 2 nd degree and 25 to life for 1 st degree). 
Thus, there is no consideration given to good time and all the heanngs prior to the 
calendar years served are unquestionably procedural. Why on earth are the taxpayers 
paying a $95,000/year salary plus per diem, expenses, and benefits for a Commissioner to 
sit on a panel that has absolutely no intention of paroling the inmate until he has 
physically served the calendar time imposed by the court? This is a waste of tax dollars! 



A4 

It seems to me that the Board needs to either obey the law or the law needs to be 
rewritten An underground policy is NOT acceptable! 

Because prisoners facing a parole hearing tend to be hopeful and because the law says the 
Panel should give them a parole date if they are suitable for parole, most enter the hearing 
room with an expectation that a date might be granted or that some reasonable 
explanation will be given. But, information about Mr. Angele's demeanor, statements, 
and decisions tells me that he lacks the ability and moral fiber to follow the requirement 
of the lav. So, when Mr. Angele appears rude, disinterested, bored, or makes derogatory 
remarks the inmates are offended. At the very least, the Commissioners should remain 
attentive' 

There is no need to have a Board that is so flagrant in their application of the law that the 
courts are compelled to move in. I would like to point out that under 1 170 the inmates 
are incarcerated for punishment, not rehabilitation. Panel members are responsible for 
articulating their reasoning in any denial of parole because the Board must show facts 
that support any finding of unsuitability. Form 1000 does not accomplish this goal! The 
burden of proof for suitability is not that of the inmate who has reached his minimum 
eligibility parole date. The Commissioners must be able to show they are basing 
decisions solely on a prisoner's suitability for parole and give them a chance to respond 
to any new evidence cited by the Board as a reason to deny parole. This is almost 
laughable because after 15-25 years how could there possibly be any more new evidence. 
Victim testimony is taken as gospel without investigation and becomes a matter of 
record Subsequently, the inmate is forced to deal with possible inaccurate information at 
future hearings The conclusions have nothing to do with the facts! Therefore, it may be 
time for the legislature to re-visit the entire question of victim involvement in parole 
hearings At this point, it should also be noted that inaudibles and omissions in Board 
hearing transcripts continues to remain problematic! 

If given a date, the inmate is reviewed by 3 separate panels. The Board meets with the 
inmate, then later a second BPT panel reviews the information. I would also like to add 
that during the time between the prison hearing and the other 2 reviews, it appears that 
documentation is added to the file without the consent or knowledge of the inmate or his 
attorney If an inmate is given a date, the file should be seized immediately by an 
independent party and every single page copied and returned to CDC. Then, if the date is 
denied either by the BPT or the Governor any additional information added will be 
obvious In a court of law, we don't let juries hustle more information from outside the 
courtroom to help them make a decision. Although a Board hearing is a quasi judicial 
event, the same rules should apply. 

Finally, the governor and his team of lawyers review the information a third time. At the 
rescission hearing of three inmates granted a parole date in 1999, the DA and sheriff 
opposed parole based on the violence and circumstances of the original crime, not on the 
prisoners" present suitability for release. The governor concurred and the date was 
denied Yet, when sentencing the inmate, the judge took into consideration the nature of 



55 



A5 

the crime. The crime will always remain constant. The inmate can't change that factor. 
Does this mean there will be more lawsuits and wasted tax dollars?! 

The BPT is an unfair panel! At the opening session of the Democratic Convention in LA, 
Davis spoke of "fairness and justice" as hallmarks of his party. However, we are not here 
to discuss the Governor nor the Board. We are here to discuss the confirmation of Mr. 
Angele. It has been my intent to point out to you that the Board, in general, and Mr. 
Angele specifically are not fair and impartial. Thus, Governor's Davis' statement is 
nothing more than political propaganda and a crock! 

This information and similar opinions which seem to indicate a pattern of behavior were 
received at my request. Mr. Angele has wrongly explained that the Board does not grant 
parole He claims the Board only finds a pnsoner suitable for parole and that granting 
parole is up to the Governor. That is contrary to Penal Code Section 3040 which clearly 
states the function of the Board is to grant parole. So, how can Mr. Angele do his job if 
he doesn't know what his job is? And how can the Board of Pnson Terms command the 
respect of prisoners when one of their Commissioners is so clearly mistaken? 

Inmate Williams was told that he will never get out of pnson and it doesn't matter what 
he does inside the prison. They discussed the murder, his past history, and his physical 
stature What on earth does a man's size have to do with his ability to stay sober, hold a 
job. be a good citizen, and manage his anger? The inmate has absolutely no control over 
the size of his hands or his height. Even though the inmate has completed all the panels' 
recommendations, they continue to deny parole based on the same factors, (form 1 000) 
Mr. Angele must know that it destroys hope to tell an inmate who has completed all of 
the parole Board's recommendations that the panel is denying him a date based on his 
appearance. Commissioners have a responsibility to pnson staff as well as to the inmates 
because a person who has been unlawfully and unreasonably demed hope can become a 
dangerous pnsoner. 

It is also interesting to note that the Board makes recommendations for therapy that are 
nonexistent at a pnsoner' s institution and even within the system. I am referencing the 
Psychotherapy Memorandum of 8-13-99. Psychotherapy may be provided to lifer 
inmates when mental health professionals determine it is needed. The mental health staff 
make the recommendation, not the Board of Prison Terms. Psychotherapy is not 
provided within CDC to lifer inmates to deal with their commitment offenses. It would 
be most helpful if the panel was required to be familiar with the programs and services 
that are actually offered at any given pnson. Then, tailor their recommendations 
accordingly' 

It doesn't matter what the trial judge and jury found. The prisoner' efforts at self- 
improvement' 7 Never enough ! The psychologists' and counselors' reports 9 Discounted 1 
Other pnson staff members' input 9 Doesn't count unless it is negative 1 The sentencing 



A6 

matrixes and suitability guidelines? Ignored ! An unbiased parole board? I don't think 
so' The rare Board decision of suitability for parole? Overruled ! 

If the governor has stated that no murderer will be paroled and thus far he has lived up to 
his commitment with the exception of one very safe battered female syndrome case, why 
do we need a Board of Prison Terms to hear murderers? This one release only came 
about because of growing pressure from inmates' lawyers, certain lawmakers, judges and 
editorial writers It was a safe political maneuver in an effort to prove he reviews each 
case on individual merit and a blanket policy does not exist. However, Governor Davis 
has taken it upon himself to act as judge and jury while overriding the court's decision at 
the tune of sentencing, so the BPT is strictly a procedural panel and a waste of tax dollars 
for a game of power and control to enhance political gam for himself. 

It is time the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate utilized their power and discretion 
in the name of justice and due process! Do not allow Davis to advance his political 
career at the expense of human lives who are deserving of parole! So, I ask you to have 
the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Governor and Mr. Angele's unlawful behavior! 
Please, take back your power of providing checks and balances to the system while 
protecting the right to due process and abiding by the law without burdening the 
taxpayer' Do NOT confirm the appointment of Commissioner Angele! 

Thank vou! 



57 



Lawin Testimony 

Senator Burton and members of the Senate Rules Committee 

My name is Nancy McGill 

My purpose here today is to propose parole reform - not working within the system. It is 
my intent to prove that the current system does not work and Commissioner Lawin 's 
practice is unlawful. As a citizen, I too, am concerned about public safety. We are in 
need of change and the first place to start is compliance with the law. However, it is 
blatantly obvious that the policies of the Governor dictate the behavior of the Board 
rather than the law. All the political talk in the world will not change this fact! 

While I agree that the present Board has softened somewhat in their behavior towards 
inmates over that of the Nielsen panel, consistency, fairness, lawfulness, and due process 
should not be affected by the personalities of the members, political pressures, or the 
political aspirations of a Governor. In a letter from the Federal Public Defender dated 
September 5, it states that no matter the circumstances or facts, no lifer is found suitable 
for parole and the findings of unsuitability are based on virtually identical reasons in 
even' case (form 1000). Should an inmate's suitability for parole vary dependent upon 
the panel's agenda? I think not! This is inappropriate and unlawful, not to mention 
unfair. 

Incarceration is the largest industry and business within our state. We are warehousing 
human beings' It is important to remember that the goal of the criminal justice system 
should be to have fewer victims, not just more prisoners! It is a self-perpetuating system 
whereby the greater the inmate population, the more prison guards required. Increased 
guard employment creates larger revenues from union dues. Thus, you have an 
indomitable force with unsurpassed lobbying power and the capabilities of controlling the 
political arena not only in the capitol, but anywhere in the state. Allowing public safety 
policies to be defined solely for the self-interest of the politically powerful compromises 
the interest of all Californians and renders us all more vulnerable. Therefore, we must 
ask ourselves who is really in the driver's seat of this state? 

***] oppose the appointment of Ms. Lawin because of the lack of due process, equal 
protection, ex post facto clauses, and violation of the 8 th Amendment's cruel and unusual 
punishment clause. PC 5075 requires a cross-section of the racial, sexual, economic, and 
geographical features of the state's population. She is strongly affiliated with law 
enforcement and is from the Los Angeles area. Ms. Lawin does not represent a cross 
section of society by virtue of her employment background or by geographic location. 
However, it is acknowledged and appreciated that at least one of the Board members is a 
female In the 3-5-99 Declaration of Albert M. Leddy, who is a retired attorney and 
former Commissioner and then Chairman, he states that by appointing and re-appointing 
BPT Commissioners known to disfavor parole or to favor a "no-parole policy one 
accomplishes a reduction in parole grants. There are cases pending in the Federal Eastern 
District Court challenging the due process issue by the BPT. Should the court decide that 



L2 

California can't abide by their own rules, they may impose an injunction against the 
Board This committee and the Senate are obligated to uphold 5075. 

Also. 1 oppose this appointment as a taxpayer My tax dollars are being wasted! This is 
strictly a procedural body' Per the LAO 2000-2001 Analysis on Judiciary and Criminal 
Justice 

Lifer Releases Essentially Discontinued. The number of lifers released to the community 
diminished during the 1990's according to CDC data. During the 1989 calendar year, 51 
1 sl degree and 2 degree murderers were released on parole by the BPT. By 1 998, the 
number had decreased to 14 (2 -I s ' degree and 12 - 2 D degree murderers). Notably, this 
dramatic slowdown in the rate of parole for lifers occurred even as the pool of lifer 
inmates eligible for release grew from 300 to 700 inmates per year. 

No inmates were released on parole in 1999. On 19 occasions in 1999, the BPT 
recommended that parole be granted, but in each case the Governor requested to review 
the case and reversed the parole decision. The Governor has indicated publicly that he 
objects to the release of anyone who has committed murder. 

Ramifications of the New Policy. The unwritten administration policy of no longer 
releasing from prison any life-term inmate who is eligible for parole has significant legal, 
policy, and fiscal ramifications for the state criminal justice system. 

The no-parole policy for lifers is likely to result in further litigation between the state and 
inmates seeking parole. The courts could determine that the administration's policy is 
contrary to state law and restrict the administration's authority over parole releases. 

Recent Office of Administrative Law Determination, A recent ruling by a state agency 
has cast a legal cloud over the administration's actions. In November 1999, OAL 
Determination £ 27 found that the state was denying parole to life inmates as a group, and 
these actions were illegal because such a policy would have to be adopted as a formal 

state regulation 

The OAL stopped short of determining whether such a policy was actually in practice, 
saving that such a determination is beyond its legal jurisdiction. Its written ruling raised 
the question, however, whether any such regulation establishing a no-parole policy for 
lifers, if it were to be formally submitted to OAL, would be in conflict with existing 
statutes and judicial case law governing the parole process. The OAL determination 
refers to a 1972 California Supreme Court ruling and a 1983 state appellate court ruling 
which held that state officials could not legally prohibit the release on parole of offenders 
as a class but were instead required to examme the case of each inmate individually based 
upon all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. (Thus, the Governor's statement 
that each case is evaluated individually.) 



59 



L3 

Fiscal Impact of Policy Change. It is estimated that more than 4,000 offenders now held 
in the state prison system at an annual cost of at least $100 million annually have served 
the minimum period of prison time to be eligible for parole release Based on the review 
of BPT caseload data, the number of additional prison inmates who exceed their 
minimum eligible release date without being released to the community is about 500 per 
year. Thus, with each passing year, state incarceration costs for this group of offenders is 
building by about $12 million. 

In addition, because offenders with life terms ordinarily are held in high-security 
facilities, the policy has added to the pressure on the state to build additional maximum- 
security bed space If it is the intent of the Governor to parole lifers in a pine box, this 
policy is also driving up CDC medical cost, because aging lifers are more likely to need 
medical assistance. 

I would like to interject here that "as a matter of statistical probability, murderers released 
from prison are far less likely to commit a new crime than any other category of 
Offender." As quoted by Leonard Orland in Justice, Punishment, Treatment: The 
Correctional Process page 425. 

Daniel Glaser in The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System tells us the older a man 
is when released from prison, the less likely he is to return to crime. The extent of a prior 
criminal record correlates directly with the likelihood of recividism. The most 
differentiating of the predictors was prior commitments. The most distinguishing 
predictor was age upon release. A firmly established finding in criminological research is 
that of a predominantly inverse relationship between age and recidivism. One can 
generalize with much confidence for any large cross-section of offenders that the older a 
man is when released from prison, the less likely he is to return to crime. The lowest 
recidivism occurs with those offenses most associated with unusual circumstances m the 
offender's life rather than with offenses pursued as vocations. Assaultive acts occur in 
situations of unusual emotion and seem to be greatly deterred by confinement. Citing 
Wenk, Robison, & Emnch the lifer recidivism rate is about 2% while all other crimes in 
California are a revolving door at approximately 83% by CDC statistics. Yet, in 
California the aged lifers remain incarcerated and we are to the point that consideration 
should be given to constructing geriatric prisons. Even those inmates at death's door are 
refused a compassionate release! 

We continue to mention the tremendous concern for public safety relative to lifers even 
with low recidivism rates. Yet, in the same breath public safety is not discussed when 
releasing an inmate directly from the shu at Pelican Bay or Corcoran. These inmates are 
schizphrenic within 6 months and are known to be escorted to the release gate in 
shackles. Schizophrenia is defined as psychotic reactions characterized by withdrawal 
from reality accompanying affectice, behavioral, and intellectual disturbances. If they are 
that great a threat, why isn't consideration given to public safety in this particular 
situation Is this a dual standard 9 



L4 

One effect of the no parole policy has been to increase costs for BPT operations. After 
initially being denied release, the offenders periodically come back to the Board for 
subsequent hearing, increasing that caseload by 140% during the 1990's. 

Analyst 's Recommendations. At the time this Analysis was prepared, they were unable to 
clarify the scope, intent, and reasons for the administration's unwritten policy of halting 
all releases of lifers to parole. 

1 feel it is important to note that throughout this report it is taken for granted that there is 
an unwritten policy The heading of Ramifications of the New Policy and Fiscal Impact 
of Policy Change demonstrates this quite clearly. 

Such a '"no-parole" policy is contrary to Penal Code 304 1 which requires that BPT "shall 
normally" set a parole date in most cases, i.e., unless the prisoner is shown to pose a 
threat to public safety, and that BPT panels shall declare prisoners "suitable" for a future 
release date and set that release date unless a preponderance of the evidence presented at 
the hearing demonstrates that the prisoner "will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to 
society if released from prison." 

Although the reluctance to grant parole began in the early 80's under Governor Wilson's 
regime. BPT panels continue to deny deserving lifers without a preponderance of 
evidence! The decisions are strictly procedural utilizing form 1000, not taking into 
consideranon the content of the hearing and their level of dangerousness, as reflected by 
performance, rehabilitation and expert evaluation in their prison records. Although Ms. 
Lawin can be described as professional, 

courteous, and understanding, she continues in the same format as the previous Board 
with a biased agenda. Parole is denied due to the callous manner in which the offense 
was earned out with no regard for human suffering. The crime can never be remedied, 
but remains constant. 

We all agree that this panel is newly seated, it is my contention that the predominate 
behavior patterns remain unchanged. Mr. Leddy also noted that it was his experience in 
which BPT hearing panels often made decisions to deny parole prior to the hearings. 
Inmates and attorneys feel this situation continues to exist. This is a conspiracy to 
prevent ] SI and 2 nd degree murderers from paroling. This no-parole policy is resulting in 
a situation whereby the inmates are serving terms beyond the maximum prescribed by the 
Judicial Council in the Murder Matrixes. Therefore, it appears obvious that the Matrix of 
Base Terms is no longer taken into consideration. 

The Determinate Sentence Law (DSL- 1 170) criteria for release on parole currently in 
effect is distinctly different from the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL - 1 168). The 
mam noticeable change from ISL to DSL is that of a philosophy shift from social 
rehabilitation (ISL) of the life inmate stressing in prison behavior and safety of the 






61 



L5 

community to a policy of punishment (DSL) stressing the gravity of the circumstances 
surrounding the commitment offense. 

In a judicial process, which the BPT are considered quasi-judicial officers with 
administrative, adjudicative, legislative, deliberative duties: there are functional 
categories as characteristics of the judicial process for the BPT members. In Cleavenger 
v. Saxner the court explained one of the factors to be the insulation from political 
influence as characteristic of the judicial process. Certainly this is not the situation in 
California because the Board is NOT a neutral and detached body! In Rodriquez, the 
California Supreme Court chastised the Adult Authority (now BPT) for abusing its 
discretion in not granting parole dates in accordance with due process and cruel and 
unusual punishment protections. It appears obvious that this disproportionate discretion 
continues as an abuse. And in fact, it is worse now than ever dreamed possible by the 
Adult Authority. 

To ensure that life term prisoners would not again be subject to arbitrary authority, the 
legislature provided just one criteria under which the BPT can defer fixing a tentative 
release date: ie when the facts demonstrate that the inmate would pose a threat of public 
safety if released (PC 3041b). This finding must be based on real facts in evidence and 
not based on mere whim or rumor, and must be determined in accordance with due 
process. The only body within the State of California that is authorized to create or 
prescribe punishment for a crime is the legislature, yet the authority for fixing this 
punishment has been delegated to the BPT empowering them to hear cases and make 
decisions Also, they were to use the Judicial Council Sentencing Rules (PC 5076. 1 ). 

So. what happened to the lifers incarcerated under the ISL? We continue to warehouse 
these inmates! It seems evident that the BPT has lumped all the inmates into one 
category When convenient they use the atrocious, or cruel and callous manner of the 
crime while in other situations they deny parole due to lack of programming, failure to 
develop marketable skills, failed to upgrade educationally/vocationally, not participated 
in beneficial self-help or therapy programs, and failed to demonstrate evidence of 
positive change regardless of the evidence provided, (form 1000) 

OAL Determination #41(1 998) discusses the unwritten policy of the BPT rescinding the 
parole dates of life prisoners sentenced under the ISL. They concluded that if the Board 
has an unwritten policy of scheduling parole rescission hearings for all ISL life prisoners 
who had previously been granted parole date, resulting in the rescission of those parole 
dates, then that policy constitutes a "regulation" as defined in the key provision of 
government code section, subdivision 'g' and is without legal effect until adopted 
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. 

How many times does a deserving inmate have to hear BPT form 1000 quoted? An '86 
version of this document was provided for your review. Although the format may have 
somewhat been altered, the wording remains the same as evidenced by my review of 



L6 

transcript denials This document proves the hearings are procedural rather than 
subjective and indicates the decisions are not based on hearing content. They are merely 
parole hearing games' 

While it is positive that the current panel has reduced it's emotional abuse, rudeness, and 
retrying the inmate about the enme, the patterns of denial behavior remain unchanged. 
The decisions are arbitrary with no continuity from hearing to hearing nor 
recommendations within the capabilities of the inmate or activities available at the 
institution As another example: An inmate had been found unanimously suitable for 
parole on two occasions by Mr. Nielsen and his panel. Which I might add was no small 
feat' However, an En Banc was held and Ms La win informed him that the prior panel 
may not have made the appropriate decision in granting parole. She said that the current 
panel just wanted to be sure and do another review as they were new panel members 
which were not familiar with his case. Isn't it their responsibility to make themselves 
familiar with the case 9 The En Banc review stated "the granting of a parole date by the 
panel on 3-23-98 may be improvident based on the gravity of the commitment offense. 
The circumstances pose significant risk to the public. The no parole policy strikes one 
more time' 

Their decisions are not based on the evidence presented nor is their compliance with the 
lau Ms La win does not seem to be familiar with PC 3003b which indicates an inmate 
may be returned to another county if that would be in the best interests of the public. 
Factors listed in section b-3: The verified existence of a work offer, or an educational or 
vocational training, and b-4: The existence of family in another county with whom the 
inmate has maintained strong ties and whose support would increase the chance that the 
inmate's parole would be successfully completed. Apparently the Board has their own 
underground rules or there is a lack of knowledge on the part of Ms La win. It does not 
seem appropriate that a Commissioner is determining the fate of another human beings 
life and is not familiar with the law! 

In closing, the common denominator or theme in each and every piece of correspondence 
centered around the idea that just maybe at some point in time the statutory law will 
overcome political ambitions and agendas enabling the Board to abide by the law and be 
fair in the parole process. 

I would like to remind the Senate Rules Committee that the burden of proof for 
establishing unsuitability is upon the Board. It is not the responsibility of the inmate to 
prove his suitability under 1 170. The BPT is obligated to abide by the Penal Code and 
Title 1 5 Had the Board been conscientious and judicious m their decisions, the courts 
would not be litigating issues of due process, equal protection under the law, ex post 
facto clauses, and violation of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment 
clause As a citizen, 1 am urging this committee and the Senate to demand lawfulness by 
the Board and Ms Lawin. Thus, creating parole reform. You have the power - 
use it ! ! ! ! ! ' Do Not confirm the appointment of Commissioner Lawm! 



409-R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 409-R when ordering. 



7